Yahoo now officially is blocking AdBlock, Google are you in?

[WilliamRayWalters]

I'm saying it's bad for the consumer to try and block their choice of whether to view advertising or not.

While companies like Youtube have to be very careful in how they implement these anti ad-blocking measures for fear of gaining a general reputation of being exclusionary, it has come to a point where the proliferation of ad blockers has begun to so seriously cut into their bottom line, and therefore, the bottom line of all Youtube creators, that they have no choice but to take action. It's not anti-consumer, it's business.

From a consumer standpoint, if a person expects free entertainment but cannot sit through a 30 second advertisement (and most of the time, one that they can skip after 5 seconds), then they are being unreasonable. Technically one could say that using ad blocking extensions is tantamount to stealing content. You're supposed to be paying for that video through watching ads, that's how the system is set up. We work hard to make content, Google/Youtube provides the video and ad platform, the viewers watch ads, and the advertisers foot the bill. Google/Youtube gets their cut to help offset their overhead and the creators get their share to compensate them for their hard work. When the viewer circumvents this system, they are taking money out of the hands of the people working hard to provide them with this entertainment. That's a pretty terrible thing to do all for the horrible inconvenience of watching a 30 second ad (most of which you can skip).

 

[stark]

You're arguing for the "right" for consumers to not view ads (some sort of "Human rights" thing?) - Nobody is forcing consumers to view ads. There are plenty of choices. Here are some choices for you:

Yahoo Mail
1)Use Yahoo mail's free service and contribute to the costs by viewing ads.
2)If you don't like ads, don't use Yahoo mail's free service. It's not rocket science. Use a paid service without ads. Pay for your own server. No ads there.

3)Use adblock if you wish to use yahoo mail without adverts. Pay for another service yahoo provides if you feel it necessary to remunerate them and they don't already provide a more direct means of compensating them for the ad-free service you desire.

I assume using the phrase "Human rights" is trying to make my view appear to be more extreme, in reality it's closer to the middle. The user of a web page is free to view whatever portion of it they wish, it's as simple as that. The creator is free to make adverts hard to strip out if they wish.

YouTube
1)Use YouTube and contribute to the costs by viewing ads.
2)Use YouTube and contribute to the costs by paying for YouTube Red.
3) If you don't like ads and you don't want to pay for YouTube Red, then no problem, stop using YouTube.

4)Use adblock if you wish to view youtube without adverts, and don't want to pay for red for whatever reason. Find ways to compensate your favourite youtubers if you want to, there's multiple ways beyond viewing an advert. Share their stuff with friends, interact heavily to help the algorithm boost their content, patreon if available, merch if available, subscribe to them on twitch if available, etc. I wonder how many of Tyler Oakley's subscribers with adblock bought his book? Just because someone decides not to view an advert does not make them worthless as a viewer imo.

Also stop making videos with monetization enabled if you are so against ads. To do otherwise makes you a hypocrite.

It's really simple. But don't expect free content or a free service without ads. No such thing as a free lunch.

Again (if you could comprehend this point that would be great), I'm not against ads, reread my posts a hundred times if that's what it takes to sink in.

 

[markkaz]

Yahoo is starting to fall apart. They have been considering shutting down some units.

If they earn their rightful revenue from ads being presented then they wouldn't necessarily be in this situation. But, let's keep the topic on point and talk about ads and ad-blocking.

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

The user of a web page is free to view whatever portion of it they wish, it's as simple as that. The creator is free to make adverts hard to strip out if they wish.

Again (if you could comprehend this point that would be great), I'm not against ads, reread my posts a hundred times if that's what it takes to sink in.

Yeah, but you're the one that was complaining about anti ad-blocking measures. If you had just said "well, that's fair...people will try to avoid ads and companies will try to prevent that" then this discussion wouldn't be necessary. But you were initially saying that Yahoo not allowing ad blockers was wrong.

 

[Crown]

3)Use adblock if you wish to use yahoo mail without adverts.

4)Use adblock if you wish to view youtube without adverts, and don't want to pay for red for whatever reason.

Your sense of entitlement is ridiculous. No, they are not viable options. YouTube and Yahoo are private companies who exist to make a profit. You are not entitled to their services for free. This is not health care or the fire service we are talking about here.

Do you expect restaurants to give you free food? Do you expect shops to give you free Tvs and computers? Is that a viable option too? Because that's exactly the same thing as you're suggesting here!

Find ways to compensate your favourite youtubers if you want to, there's multiple ways beyond viewing an advert. Share their stuff with friends, interact heavily to help the algorithm boost their content, patreon if available, merch if available, subscribe to them on twitch if available, etc. I wonder how many of Tyler Oakley's subscribers with adblock bought his book? Just because someone decides not to view an advert does not make them worthless as a viewer imo.

Your naivety is also ridiculous. It's not just about the creator doh! YouTube the company is also a huge part of the equation.

Do you have any idea of the costs of running YouTube?! Server costs and bandwidth costs?!! It's not a public service. It's not a charity. It costs YouTube millions of dollars to run.


Do you work? What is your job? What products and or services do you sell? Why don't you give your customers the option of having those products or services for free? That'd be awesome wouldn't it? You should suggest it to your boss and ask him what he thinks. Please post his reply here.

I'm done replying to you. You're just a hypocrite who wants to make money from ads but doesn't want to contribute.

 

[stark]

Yeah, but you're the one that was complaining about anti ad-blocking measures. If you had just said "well, that's fair...people will try to avoid ads and companies will try to prevent that" then this discussion wouldn't be necessary. But you were initially saying that Yahoo not allowing ad blockers was wrong.

Is that where the confusion comes from? I haven't said anything contradictory as far as I know; they can try to block adblock users but I don't like the idea of them doing so. I'm trying to be as clear as I can be, apologies if it's not coming across.

Your sense of entitlement is ridiculous. No, they are not viable options. YouTube and Yahoo are private companies who exist to make a profit. You are not entitled to their services for free. This is not health care or the fire service we are talking about here.

They are viable options whether you like it or not, and may I point out that health care and the fire service is not free either. The majority of people are expected pay for those services through taxes if they have the means.

Do you expect restaurants to give you free food? Do you expect shops to give you free Tvs and computers? Is that a viable option too? Because that's exactly the same thing as you're suggesting here!

Of course not, and it's not the same as you well know.

Your naivety is also ridiculous. It's not just about the creator doh! YouTube the company is also a huge part of the equation.

Do you have any idea of the costs of running YouTube?! Server costs and bandwidth costs?!! It's not a public service. It's not a charity. It costs YouTube millions of dollars to run.

Youtube is not my concern, I go to youtube for the creators. FWIW I will very likely get red as soon as it is available in my country, as a convenient way of compensating everyone I watch on youtube and yes, youtube too (a 45% of which I think is steep, I'd rather creators received at least 70% but it is what it is).

Do you work? What is your job? What products and or services do you sell? Why don't you give your customers the option of having those products or services for free? That'd be awesome wouldn't it? You should suggest it to your boss and ask him what he thinks. Please post his reply here.

Yes I work, does that make my opinion more worthy? Repeated use of reductio ad absurdum does not increase the strength of the argument.

I'm done replying to you. You're just a hypocrite who wants to make money from ads but doesn't want to contribute.

Actually I do both. Perhaps it's for the best you're done with replying, because no matter how much I explain it doesn't seem to help.

 

[TheFTDGames]

I wouldn't be shocked if one of these were put on YouTube but, I can see others getting around it. People are creative sometimes.

 

[Lightsen]

LOL
, I find it weird that people never"boycotted" tv for showing ads. But for some reason everything on the internet should be free everywhere

 

[BamaGuyRTR]

I don't use adblock and I still will not pay $10 a month just to have an ad-free experience on YouTube. That's just way too much.

 

[Onlinetechs]

I've done nothing for the past hour but read the news feeds on 'Adblock Yahoo' and have been amused by the endless amounts of people saying "F This! I'm moving to Gmail! Apple Mail! Any mail, anything better than Yahoo, I'm forwarding my inbox starting today" however I would LOVE to see how people substitute YouTube for a service like Hulu or Vimeo. Despite the cries of what I think is about to happen, all these people are going to return back to YouTube and watch the ads with their tails cupped beneath their legs. I don't think people understand the kind of monopoly YT has over the video vertical, even if they forced 00:60 ads, people would just have to eat it.

During my research it seems that a lot of other news outlets have rolled out similar "White list this site or don't use it" tactics which yes are risky but in fairness these sites are clearly doing it only because they are hurting from the impact of lower profit margins.

Alternatively, to sympathize with the pro-ad block guys (keep in mind I have no idea why I even thought of this) but if Google wasn't to implement a permanent block, adding a 'Whitelist this channel' button would also do wonders; though I highly doubt public participation would be anywhere near as good that it may just pay off to kill the app all together. Yanno what, scratch the sympathy; YT Red is most likely going to be the "new" adblock and that's fine with me, in all fairness of course.

My only disappointment is that they allowed for this to go on (over 30 million adblock downloads) for the last 6 quarters watching monitization performance sink through the ground.