YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers
YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers
cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2883134 (!android@lemdro.id)
You're viewing a single thread.
What prevents them from going in video adds? Technically difficult? Or what?
Sponsorblock basically already bypasses this.
In video ads = no relevant ads based on the user. Less relevant ads = less revenue generated for people paying YouTube for hosting those ads. Thus, people would pay less to YouTube to host ads. Thus, less profits for YouTube.
Plus as another dude said: Sponsorblock.
I think it wouldn't be that dificult to figure out what is interesting for people watching the video since channels themselves already usually have a target audience. If I am watching a video from a dude who focus on video games or tech odds are I'd be more interested in tech adds. But if Google REALLY wants to know what we need/want then yeah maybe you're right. Shit it happened so many times me just saying the word pizza would set off a pizza ad later in my phone. These mfers want to inject ads in our souls.
Not rlly. Your point would be relevant for niche YouTube videos. What about generic videos tho? Say something like music videos. Kinda everyone watches them. In fact, music videos get the highest amount of views. Ads inserted in such videos based purely on the content of these videos would be too generic, thus of lower average relevancy to the viewer, thus ultimately translating to less revenue.
I don't get targeted ads anymore but it took a lot of work to get here and I don't have a lot of the conveniences as other folks who use google play, oauth, etc.
Why can't YouTube just render the video on the fly with the relevant add?
Not sure if they have that kind of processing power. Also, couldn’t you modify the player to skip them?
That IS how YouTube works. Let's say you are watching a YT video. What your YouTube app/ website does, is that it downloads a certain portion of the video from the server. This small part is called a "buffer". That's where the word "buffering" comes from. Now, for the ad to be displayed within the video stream itself, it would need to be downloaded in this buffer somehow. Therefore, while there is a buffer in place, all of my above points would apply.
Completely eliminate the buffer you say (ie., stream the video bit by bit by reducing the buffering size dramatically) ? Well, then you would need an ultra stable internet connection to YouTube's servers, without any ping difference. Good luck with that. Especially, good luck with doing that in developing countries, whose populations make up the majority of the world.
There's no reason they can't mix relevant ads in the video stream itself. It's just technically more expensive and complex.
U could still easily evade this. Here's why:
Ad is inserted into stream. Either one of two things happens depending upon the way it is implemented:
Trust me lol. There is literally no way you can prevent ad blockers.
if the platform decides which and where the ads will run during the video on page load, not during video pIay then I dont see how this could be blocked.
Anither thing they can do is enforce policy and start deleting/banning accounts blocking ads. I have some stuff on google account. Wouldn't be fun to have it deleted.
Since their pop-up already mentioned using AdBlock violating their TOS, I've started using a different Browserprofile with a dedicated Google account which I'll exclusively use for YouTube.
If there will be a slow weekend coming up, I'll set up a self hosted piped instance
Look at point 3. I explained this could still be skipped due to them having to visually indicate that it was an ad. This visual indication could easily be skipped by the local user.
As for them deleting accounts that blocked ads, how would they identify if someone blocked ads? Generate a secret key for every ad, that would be returned every time a user watched ads? This could easily be overcome, as an adblocker could simply extract this key and send it back to the server.
Trust me.... If there was a way to block ad blockers, the greedy capitalists would've done so a loooong time ago.
Ok I see. Why is Chrome store still having ublock origin there and others? I'd just remove it. But they let it be there for everyone to download.
Ok so this is how I think it works behind the scenes: the actual devs at Google don't give af whether ppl use adblockers or not. I think it's probably just the execs who come across stuff like this and tell the devs to "fix the problem". Look at how Vanced was there for a long time. Only when it started becoming too popular (especially when they released an NFT), did YouTube crack down on it.
The reason why ublock origin is still in the Chrome store is because the execs prolly don't know about it much. Maybe they are afraid that ppl would immediately hop onto Firefox if they did anything stupid like that? I dunno.... However, I'm pretty confident that they're going to do something stupid like banning ad blockers from the Chrome store quite soon. It would be quite hilarious to see the aftermath of that!
In video ads, even those by the content creators themselves, can generally be dealt with using SponsorBlock. This is community driven, users mark the segment of the video that's just sponsor filler or credits or whatever.
You can even get a NewPipe fork that includes SponsorBlock.
