I don't see how any of that is an excuse not to pay for youtube. If there is no ad-free version and no alternative products then I get blocking ads, I do too. But when I'm given an option to pay to remove ads, I generally pay.
For websites that give me a popup saying disable adblock or no content, I immediately hit the back button and let them rot in no-view hell.
Not being able to block YouTube ads is always used as some kind of gotcha, but for me the trade-off is easily worth it.
Besides, blocking YouTube ads seems a lot scummier than blocking regular ads. Ad least some percentage of that ad revenue goes to the creator of the video you're watching, and not to Google. It's why I'm happy to subscribe to YouTube Premium.
I use an ad blocker but I'm not entitled. If YouTube decides to stop me from using it I'll either pay for Premium or stop watching YouTube. I don't think I have any right to watch it for free without paying if they don't want to allow that.
It's hard to know if in the long run they will start requiring subscriptions, develop better anti-blocker tech, or just give up and eat the loss. But somehow I wouldn't bet on #3.
I'm also a heavy user of ad blockers, but there is something to be said in defense of YouTube.
Creators have the final decision on the ads shown. I have a YouTube channel, and I always disable monetization on all my videos, so no ads are ever shown on my channel.
If you see an ad, it's because the creator decided to include one. YouTube is simply the platform that enables this choice.
Youtube could make their ads unblockable by putting them in the content's video stream or just serving them from the same domain. I feel like they don't do that just as a way to be nice to adblockers, but I don't know why.
So the solution is having the choice of either paying not to have ads or having ads? I'm not saying that is right or wrong, I just want to clarify.
Food for thought, I wonder if that works specifically for them because it's harder to block their ads. I.e. it typically takes a different level of expertise to block their ads, as compared to a browser extension (have to block their ad traffic on a network level). Or is it really something else about their product?
As a counter example, I don't pay for youtube premium. Definitely part of the reason behind that is because it's easy to block them so long as I'm watching in a browser.
Finally. Call me sentimental, but ad blocking makes me uncomfortable, especially on a site like YouTube where most creators seem to really struggle to earn a reasonable amount of compensation for their effort. Yet a short while back, I finally lost patience with the ever-increasing duration and prevalence of YouTube's video ads and installed a blocker; to me, personally, their demand on my attention was starting to bring back bad memories of ad-festooned TV shows and just feel truly obnoxious and disrespectful. I will be happy to turn off the blocker and switch to paying with money, which I do not value as much as my brain.
So one thing I am curious about -- as someone who pays for YouTube but doesn't use an ad blocker -- is what the experience is for people who do both [since ads are on places besides YouTube].
Do you get blocked from the service you're paying for, or do you not even notice the ongoing war?
I'm just left scratching my head as to how or why Youtube hasn't been able to force advertisements on me somehow?
It can't be that difficult for them, can it?
Just send advertisements through youtube.com instead of googlesyndication.net or whatever runs their video ads now.
How could adblockers ever block youtube.com?
I'm just curious if anyone has any insight into how I have successfully been able to block for so long. And if there is a strategy behind my being allowed to do so?
If Youtube ads mean that much to you, why not just pay for it? I'm all for ad blocking (I use ublock too) but if I heavily use a site that offers me a way to pay a reasonable price, I think it's the right thing to do. Uploaders with monetized videos still get paid that way (and I don't want to bother with Patreon etc, that doesn't nearly scale to everyone I watch videos from).
This would be a good thing in the long run. It would open the door to paid services that could be competitive. Currently YouTube is free and there are no consequences for blocking ads. It's funny, I didn't even realize that YouTube had ads until I turned off my ad blocker one day. I was amazed at how awful the experience was...
I already block advertisements on the web, so I see none when on a Desktop web version of YouTube. But I do not use Sponsor Block so those creators still get to show me their ExpressVPN ads or whatever the flavor is today. Also I use Patreon.
I've never not blocked online advertisements.
reply