• Vinny_93@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Literally the only way they will learn. I really don’t understand how we as a society have accepted ads as a necessary evil. We all hate them, but we all also make them work. It’s horrible.

      • imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 minutes ago

        Are these “we all” people you talking about are in the same room with us right now? I don’t really think that would apply to all of us.

      • sdcSpade@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I’ve been wondering for a while where the point of diminishing returns is. Surely, at some point, ads become aggressive enough to have an adverse effect on advertisers?

    • 73QjabParc34Vebq@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      All these sites monitor engagement, they walk the line between maximum ads and users. If we decrease the users, they’ll decrease the ads to try and keep us.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 hour ago

        LOL, nah. If we decrease the users, they’ll increase the ads to try to compensate for declining revenue. They believe they have all the power and don’t give a fuck what we think.

  • FarceOfWill@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 hours ago

    If the Google war on ad blocking meant the ad blockers accidently blocked something everyone wants its still Google fault.

    Everything was fine until Google decided to change how everything works over and over again to get people to watch the awful ads they let on their platform.

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Lemme try and feel sorry for my cartoonishly rich tech overlords real quick…

  • Jestzer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    For those curious what “adblockers said really happened”:

    [AdGuard] suggested that the issue may have been linked to popular community-maintained filter lists like EasyList and uBlock’s Quick Fixes.

    A new filter rule added to EasyList on August 11, 2025 targeted telemetry requests thought to be tied to YouTube’s view attribution and analytics.

    That rule remained in place until September 10, when it was temporarily disabled.

    A similar change was added to uBlock’s Quick Fixes on September 10 and removed on September 17.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      OK. I mean Fuck Alphabet anyhow, but this means a youtuber who relies on view counts for monetary income (I guess) would actually have reason to worry about adblockers?

      Again, I’m not saying I’m against adblockers or even this particular feature. And I very well see what Google is doing here, trying to get their creators up in arms against adblocking. I just want to know if this is debunkable or if youtubers would have a genuine argument here.

      I did not really understand above explanation. I guess I need it ELI5.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Basically Youtube instead of counting views via actual requests for the videos instead uses a separate call that essentially says “hey, someone watched this video”. All the ad blockers rather than use a hard coded list of URLs to block which would quickly go stale instead use one of a couple different 3rd party lists the most popular of which is EasyList. EasyList decided to block the URL that youtube uses to register views on the principal that it was a privacy violation because it not only registers “hey someone watched this” but also captures exactly who watched it which allows Google to track your viewing habits.

      • Funwayguy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        It wouldn’t matter whether it was intentional or not. Put simply, Google can continue indirectly punishing creators for tolerating adblockers then redirect blame, even though they could have easily separated the metrics from the advertising and telemetry endpoints that blockers filtered. This way they get their money either from unblocked ads or from creator’s reduced view counts, win-win for Google.

        As an added bonus for Google, by ensuring view metrics get fucked up, it double punishes creators featuring sponsored content that rely on those metrics to determine how much the sponsor should pay them. Meanwhile Google could, in theory, sell ad placements attached to their own internal metrics that differ from the affected ones publicly visible.

        • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          So you’re saying Google packaged the viewcount that’s relevant to monetization into a 3rd party js data request instead of just counting the actual video’s views, and so manages to play content creators against privacy-conscious users?

          Worthy of a Roman Emperor, that.

          • Funwayguy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            See that’s the fun part. Google is the ad company so it’s all 1st party data. Google can package the Trojan horse however they please, which why it’s such a fine line for the blockers to walk.

      • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        39 minutes ago

        I have a few YouTubers I like to support with views of all of their content. Because I want them to get the support, I watch their content on YouTube with no ad blockers.

        • Covenant@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 minutes ago

          Louis Rossmann says if you donate 1 dollar direct to the YouTuber you give them more support than a couple of years of watching ads. Keep using a adblocker and buy some merch for support.

  • Almacca@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The number of ads I had popping up while trying to read that article isn’t discouraging me from using adblockers.

    • Cousin Mose@lemmy.hogru.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      4 hours ago

      This is actually one of my favorite websites to browse on desktop through my VPN and extreme DNS blocking solution. The console just fills with blocked content and JavaScript errors, it really warms my heart.

  • Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 hours ago

    (shrug) don’t care if it affects views, never should have had them in videos regardless.

      • Lfrith@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I personally wouldn’t care that much if youtube went back to how it was back in the day of people sharing for the sake of sharing instead of it being filled with bunch of aspiring infomercial hosts trying to get the bag.

        Have to block so many channels because they monopolize the top search results before I see videos from normal folks just uploading to upload because they thought a video would be helpful.

      • Daemon Silverstein@calckey.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        @kokesh@lemmy.world @Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world

        Creators are paid based on those views if they’re willing to be dependent on them.

        There are many, many ways for a content creator to be supported (and a viewer/follower to support them) without relying on Google: Kofi, OpenCollective, even Patreon, to name a few. And there are platforms specifically paid by the viewer, such as Nebula.

        It’s worth mentioning: donation is a thing and many do donation-based projects. It can be even a direct bank transfer from a viewer to the bank account of the content creator. I say this as someone who did support content creators and donated to them. In the past, I used to pay for membership for two specific Youtube channels, back when I still used to use Youtube. When I stopped using Youtube, I went from YT membership to direct, bank transfer to both creators behind these channels. I wished they would choose to use some private PeerTube instance/channel (it’s a thing) or even Nebula, but they stubbornly chose to stick to Google’s walled garden, unfortunately leaving me with no choice but to stop watching them both.

    • danA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn’t get money from you just watching the video.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Paying to access content makes a lot more sense that hoping someone willingly watches an advert on their own hardware.

        An indirect, alternate could be universal basic income - which makes it easier for people to choose less profitable options.

        • danA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          A lot of people either don’t want to pay, or can’t pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we’re a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.

          • zurohki@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Those people who can’t pay aren’t really worth anything to advertise to, though.

      • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        If it were sensibly prized I would have no issue with paying for YouTube. But seeing as they almost ask for the same as Netflix and co while not producing any content, I decided for the adblocker instead

        • manxu@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          They do not produce content, but they share 70% of revenue with the creators. You can argue that’s not enough, but it’s definitely more than Netflix et al pay their content creators.

    • danA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      deleted by creator