Screw you YouTube. I hope you do it.

[Twilight Hue]

MSN

www.msn.com

YouTube limits ad blocker usage in new test | TechCrunch

YouTube is running a new experiment to limit usage on ad blockers by asking users to turn it off after three videos.

techcrunch.com

I use ad blockers and if this is the game they want to play, there are plenty of competitors who will take the entire viewer base with a royal middle finger to the greedy ***** and their bat**** crazy CEO.

It's just a test for the moment, but if they go full blown with the three strike rule, my sincerest wish is the entire platform dies the death it deserves so very much with its obnoxious unskippable ads along with it. Put it out of its misery. You Tube deserves it.

There was a time when annoying ads were all but non existent, and it was a great successful video sharing platform.

No more it isn't.

Buh Bye YT and good frikkin riddance forever if implemented systemwide.

Whoo.... end of rant. "0)

 

[Ella S.]

YouTube's popularity over time means that I frequently use it to watch lectures from college courses uploaded for free, often over a decade ago, by professors and students. It's a useful way to continue to learn when full-time college enrollment isn't an option for me.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see the same size catalog from any other free service. Curiosity Stream and Brilliant.org are potential alternatives to some degree, but they both have paywalls.

If I was able to pay to begin with, I would enroll in college courses locally instead, and then I could also receive degrees for my trouble. I'm saving up to do that, anyway, since my offer for full scholarship has expired.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why should we expect these platforms to be free?

Pay the premium fee and get no adds.

Regards Tony

 

[SalixIncendium]

#entitlement

 

[HonestJoe]

I use ad blockers and if this is the game they want to play, there are plenty of competitors who will take the entire viewer base with a royal middle finger to the greedy ***** and their bat**** crazy CEO.

Are you sure? Competitors will only seek a user base (and thus infrastructure costs) if they can make money out of it. And how do you imagine they'd do that?

There was a time when annoying ads were all but non existent, and it was a great successful video sharing platform.

Certainly back when it was much smaller but delivering millions of videos to millions of viewers isn't free. I'm also sure that one of the reasons for there being more adverts was when people started using ad-blockers.

Buh Bye YT and good frikkin riddance forever if implemented systemwide.

I'm not sure they'll miss you (or me) individually. They'll continue to be looking to strike a balance between appealing to users while having a viable income. It's an ever-shifting industry and market so that answer is unlikely to remain the same.

I'm also curious if you object to advertising in any other field - say TV, cinema, streaming, on this forum?

 

[ratiocinator]

Why should we expect these platforms to be free?

#entitlement

Hum. Not at all sure about this. It's not like YouTube isn't profitable as it is. Don't you think $8.6bn in a quarter is enough? They already force us to watch ads before many videos, and since I don't think I've ever clicked on some ad that just happened to be on a website in my life, they'll hardly be losing out from my ad-blocker.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hum. Not at all sure about this. It's not like YouTube isn't profitable as it is. Don't you think $8.6bn in a quarter is enough? They already force us to watch ads before many videos, and since I don't think I've ever clicked on some ad that just happened to be on a website in my life, they'll hardly be losing out from my ad-blocker.

It can be a great resource, worth a fee. I link videos for work training sessions.

Obscene profits can be used for good. Let's hope a future takes all this into consideration, giving access to the resource for all humanity, not just the more wealthy.

Regards Tony

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why should we expect these platforms to be free?

Pay the premium fee and get no adds.

Regards Tony

I agree. The only reason I'm not on it is the cell phone shaped vids, so I don't use it like I used to. The price is worth it for the regular content.

I use ad blockers and if this is the game they want to play, there are plenty of competitors who will take the entire viewer base with a royal middle finger to the greedy ***** and their bat**** crazy CEO.

When youtube got bought by google and started out ad free everyone wondered how it would make money to pay for itself, and I knew it would be ad supported or fee based eventually. That was the time to protest and to fight the service, and a lot of people did. A lot of people switched then to alternatives such as vimeo; but by this strategy of starting out free and then charging youtube has gathered a great deal of free content and has dominated the video market. You and I have helped it to do so by making it the only game in town. Its no different from Walmart or Amazon.

 

[Vee]

It costs a lot of money to run Youtube. If you're not paying the service, they need to get their revenue somewhere else. That's advertisement.

 

[ratiocinator]

It can be a great resource, worth a fee. I link videos for work training sessions.

If I was using it seriously I'd be okay with paying a reasonable fee, but I just don't. I watch the occasional music video and some other stuff. Probably people pointing me at it on this forum, and others, accounts for most of my use. Just not worth it.

Why penalise people like me, just because they don't think $28.8 billion isn't enough money to make from advertising in a year? I won't use it with ads anyway. Either one of the ways I use to get round this kind of thing will work or I won't use it. I've never turned off my ad-blocker to use any site. If the site is worth it and/or I intend to use it a lot, I'll pay the fee, otherwise I'll work round or steer clear.

Obscene profits can be used for good.

Of course they can be. If I thought for a moment that they were being, I'd maybe think differently.

You're talking to somebody who hasn't watch a TV ad since sometime in the 1980s (IIRC) when the home video recorder became a viable proposition....

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Why should we expect these platforms to be free?

Because we already pay for YouTube with our data and with whatever content we upload onto YouTube?

I don’t know.


Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Estro Felino]

I love commercials, honestly.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

MSN

www.msn.com

YouTube limits ad blocker usage in new test | TechCrunch

YouTube is running a new experiment to limit usage on ad blockers by asking users to turn it off after three videos.

techcrunch.com

I use ad blockers and if this is the game they want to play, there are plenty of competitors who will take the entire viewer base with a royal middle finger to the greedy ***** and their bat**** crazy CEO.

It's just a test for the moment, but if they go full blown with the three strike rule, my sincerest wish is the entire platform dies the death it deserves so very much with its obnoxious unskippable ads along with it. Put it out of its misery. You Tube deserves it.

There was a time when annoying ads were all but non existent, and it was a great successful video sharing platform.

No more it isn't.

Buh Bye YT and good frikkin riddance forever if implemented systemwide.

Whoo.... end of rant. "0)

In my experience, if one hits the refresh button as soon as an ad starts at the beginning of a clip, the ad is stopped and the clip you want to watch is launched instead.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[ratiocinator]

I love commercials, honestly.

No accounting for taste, as they say. Enjoy.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

#entitlement

Yes. Theirs; to my data.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not worried. They can try, but us ad-haters will stay ahead of the game and see no ads.
Not that I use Youtube much anyways. Music videos are largely it for me.

Certainly back when it was much smaller but delivering millions of videos to millions of viewers isn't free. I'm also sure that one of the reasons for there being more adverts was when people started using ad-blockers.

Some of us just aren't interested in the junk they're trying to hawk on people by making then want things they don't really want or need.
If they become responsible with advertising (as in no more bs fantasy claims and false images and no more preying on insuecurities and children) I might consider, but I'm still not interested so I won't be seeing their ads. At all.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes. Theirs; to my data.

Im sure you tead the TOCs before committing you data to YouTube?

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Im sure you tead the TOCs before committing you data to YouTube?

Indeed, I did.
Its implications were different in 2006.

 

[Stevicus]

MSN

www.msn.com

YouTube limits ad blocker usage in new test | TechCrunch

YouTube is running a new experiment to limit usage on ad blockers by asking users to turn it off after three videos.

techcrunch.com

I use ad blockers and if this is the game they want to play, there are plenty of competitors who will take the entire viewer base with a royal middle finger to the greedy ***** and their bat**** crazy CEO.

It's just a test for the moment, but if they go full blown with the three strike rule, my sincerest wish is the entire platform dies the death it deserves so very much with its obnoxious unskippable ads along with it. Put it out of its misery. You Tube deserves it.

There was a time when annoying ads were all but non existent, and it was a great successful video sharing platform.

No more it isn't.

Buh Bye YT and good frikkin riddance forever if implemented systemwide.

Whoo.... end of rant. "0)

I wouldn't have a problem with ads, as long as the majority of the revenue goes directly to the content producers. Without the content, there is no YouTube.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I was surprised how easy it is to not see most ads on an Android phone, and without installing ad-blockers - which I have on any computer I've ever owned.