Comment by labrador

Comment by labrador 2 days ago

82 replies

I'd gladly pay for YouTube without ads if I trusted that it would remain ad free, but the track record from various companies on this is not good.

Karsteski 2 days ago

I tried paying for YouTube premium then they fucked around by not giving me all the features I paid for when I was visiting another country. There's no winning with these people.

  • dandellion 2 days ago

    I paid premium a few months, then they added shorts and there was no way to block them, so I installed a blocker and stopped paying for it.

jamesfmilne 2 days ago

I've been paying for YouTube premium for probably 2 years now. Never had any inserted ads. Only the "this video is sponsored by" stuff, which you can just skip over.

I can't possibly go back to non-Premium YouTube, and if they mess around with Premium I'll probably be moving on from YouTube.

matheusmoreira 2 days ago

Paying to avoid ads just makes your attention even more valuable to them. Always block them unconditionally and without any payment.

Ads are a violation of the sanctity of our minds. They are not entitled to our attention. It's not currency to pay for services with.

  • yard2010 2 days ago

    Ads are social cancer that's spreading without any attention nor control from the authorities. Just like cigarettes 30 years ago.

  • ThunderSizzle 2 days ago

    Or rather, don't use YouTube without paying.

    Youtube isn't free, and unlike a simple blog, requires tons of infrastructure and content creation. None of that is free, and people wanting that to be free is why we're in adscape hell.

    Edit: I'd love for a competitor to youtube, but there isn't. Rumble isn't a real competitor, and none of my favorite channels place their content there either.

    I wish there was a youtube alternative that was more of a federation, but every attempt I've seen of federations have been mess.

    • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

      > Youtube isn't free

      Then charge for it like the other streaming services. If they send me ads, I'll block and delete them, manually or automatically, and I won't lose a second of sleep over it.

      > requires tons of infrastructure and content creation

      Not our problem. It's up to the so called innovators to come up with a working business model. If they can't, they should go bankrupt.

      • [removed] 2 days ago
        [deleted]
  • theoreticalmal 2 days ago

    That’s quite a stretch. I loathe ads as much as anyone else here, but I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind (is my mind even sacrosanct, such that it could be violated?) it’s just something I don’t like.

    And yes, attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things. Like any other voluntary transaction, no one is entitled to my attention unless we both voluntarily agree to it.

    • card_zero 2 days ago

      That implies voluntarily paying attention to adverts, as an informal contractual obligation. You aren't allowed on Youtube any more because you haven't been allowing the adverts to influence you enough. You can't look away or think about something else, that's cheating on the deal.

    • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

      > I don’t consider being exposed to them as violating the sanctity of my mind

      I do. I think it's a form of mind rape. You're trying to read something and suddenly you've got corporations inserting their brands and jingles and taglines into your mind without your consent. That's unacceptable.

      > attention is absolutely a currency that can be used to pay for things

      No. Attention is a cognitive function. It has none of the properties of currency.

      These corporations are sending you stuff for free. They are hoping you will pay attention to the ads. At no point did they charge you any money. You are not obligated to make their advertising campaigns a success.

      They are taking a risk. They are assuming you will pay attention. We are entirely within our rights to deny them their payoff. They sent you stuff for free with noise and garbage attached. You can trash the garbage and filter out the noise. They have only themselves to blame.

    • sensanaty 2 days ago

      Advertisements have been proven countless times to be a form of psychological manipulation, and a very potent one that works very well. After all, if it didn't work we wouldn't be seeing ads crop up literally every-fucking-where, including these days even in our very own night sky in the form of drone lightshows. The ad companies have huge teams of mental health experts in order to maximize the reach & impact of their advertisements on the general populace.

      Ads are so powerful that they've even managed to twist the truth about plenty of horrific shit happening to the point of affecting the health and safety of real people, sometimes literally on a global scale. Chiquita bananas, De Beers, Nestle, Oil & Gas companies, and must I remind you of Tobacco companies (and surprise surprise, the same people who were doing the ads for Big Tobacco are the ones doing ad campaigns for O&G companies now)? There have been SO MANY examples from all these companies of using advertisements to trick and manipulate people & politicians, oftentimes just straight up lying, like the Tobacco companies lying about the adverse health effects despite knowing for decades what the adverse health effects were, Or Oil & Gas companies lying about climate change via comprehensive astroturfing & advertisement campaigns [1].

      This all barely scratches the surface, too, especially these days where you have platforms like Google and Meta enabling genocides, mass political interference and pushing things like crypto scams, gambling ads and other similarly heinous and harmful shit to the entire internet.

      The TL;DR of all of this is that yes, advertisements absolutely are psychological warfare. They have been and continue to be used for absolutely vile and heinous activities, and the advertisers employ huge teams of people to ensure that their mass influence machine runs smoothly, overtaking everyone's minds slowly but surely with nothing but pure lies fabricated solely to sell people products they absolutely do not, and will never need.

      [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v1Yg6XejyE

  • luoc 2 days ago

    Can you elaborate a bit? Why would that make my attention more valuable than other's?

    • tyre 2 days ago

      If you are a paying subscriber, you are self-identifying as (likely) a higher net-worth. The problem for ad platforms allowing paid opt-out is that the most valuable users leave the network.

      Then they have to go to advertisers and say, “advertise on our network where all the wealthier people are not.” A brand like Tiffany’s or Rolex (both huge advertisers) aren’t going to opt into that.

      • layer8 2 days ago

        A YouTube subscription doesn’t exactly break the bank. Being able to afford it doesn’t make you wealthy.

        Apart from that, you can bet that YouTube is pricing it in a way that they aren’t losing out compared to ad revenue.

    • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

      Because by paying you are demonstrating you have more than enough disposable income to waste on their extortion. You're paying for the privilege of segmenting yourself into the richer echelons of the market. You're basically doing their marketing job for them and paying for the privilege.

      At some point some shareholder value maximizing CEO is going to sit down and notice just how much money he's leaving on the table by not advertising to paying customers like you. It's simply a matter of time.

      Take a third option. Don't pay them and block their ads. Block their data collection too. It's your computer, you are in control.

      • krelian 2 days ago

        You gotta love the mental gymnastics people will go through to convince themselves that not paying and blocking ads is the morally correct thing to do.

        If you truly have those beliefs the right moral action is to not use YouTube at all but god forbid you'd have to make any sort of sacrifice.

  • JumpCrisscross 2 days ago

    The point is most people will never pay. That makes the Adblock/anti-adblock war inevitable for them. If you can afford it, you sidestep it. If you can’t or won’t, you don’t. Pretending there is some point where those folks would pay is a little delusional in my view.

    • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

      I'm not pretending. I know most people won't pay. The point is it doesn't matter.

      They're giving their stuff away for free instead of charging money for it. They gambled on the notion that people would "pay" by watching ads. Unfortunately for them, attention is not currency to pay for services with. We will resist their attempts to monetize our cognitive functions. The blocking of advertising is self defense.

      They have absolutely nobody but themselves and their own greed to blame. Instead of charging money up front like an honest business, they decided to tap into that juicy mass market by giving away free sfuff. Their thinking goes: if I give them free videos with ads, then they will look at the ads and I will get paid. That's magical thinking. There is no such deal in place. We are not obligated to look at the ads at all. They don't get to cry about their gamble not paying off.

      • JumpCrisscross 2 days ago

        > They have absolutely nobody but themselves and their own greed to blame

        They’re one of the most profitable media platforms on the planet. They’ll be fine. Nobody is crying. There are just willing participants—as you say, on both sides—in what I consider a pretty silly battle one can opt out of with a small amount of money.

        • matheusmoreira 7 hours ago

          They're profitable because people look at ads. By blocking their ads, we are reducing the return on investment of their advertising platform, ideally to zero. Extensions such as AdNauseam even push it into negative value territory by increasing costs for no benefit.

          Ad blockers are an existential threat to them.

raincole 2 days ago

Youtube premium has been ad-free for 10 years. What kind of track record do you need? 20 years? 100 years?

  • izzydata a day ago

    Youtube premium is still an ad driven business model. They are the ones making the problem worse so they can sell you the solution. The more you pay for Youtube Premium the more incentive they have to make ads worse.

  • eviks 2 days ago

    It has never been ad-free, sponsored segments have always existed

    • arccy a day ago

      you should blame the creators for being greedy, not YouTube for that

      • eviks a day ago

        YT sets the rules of what content is allowed and sets the level of deception in their marketing regarding this "ours vs theirs" distinction in ads, so feel free to blame it as well.

  • vinyl7 2 days ago

    Netflix and other streaming sites have ads on some paid subscriptions. First they start with ad free subs, then introduce ads and introduce a higher priced tier to get rid of ads

    • WrongAssumption 2 days ago

      Can't you just stop subscribing when that happens? You aren't signing a 5 year contract.

    • raincole 2 days ago

      So if one supermarket sold expired food, we should avoid another supermarket that has not been doing that for 10 years? Google/Youtube doesn't own Netflix. If anything, the reasonable response would be to unsub Netflix and sub its competitors, like, uh, Youtube.

      • eviks 2 days ago

        No, if all the big supermarkets sell expired food from time to time to meet profitability expectations, there is no reason to believe one will be so unique as to be able to resist using the same industry standard, especially when it already has a much bigger expired food business

iLoveOncall 2 days ago

So pay now and stop paying if they introduce ads? It's not like it's a lifetime subscription.

I've been paying for it for a year+ for my girlfriend who was watching more ads than content and we've never seen ads since.

  • labrador 2 days ago

    That's good to know. I was hoping for a reply like yours. I will subscribe. YouTube is an amazing resource for human kind and I agree those of us who can afford it should pay to support it.

    • rightbyte 2 days ago

      Seems strange to me to support Google with your money from a moral perspective. It is a spyware company.

  • j45 2 days ago

    Totally, there's not a lot of places to vote with your dollars to get rid of interruptions like Ads, and also get back a lot of time of your life.

npteljes 2 days ago

I just pay them until it works, and I'll reconsider once it changes. Don't worry about track record, you can stop paying anytime.

stefan_ 2 days ago

They rolled out the Chrome "kill adblockers" update globally then unleashed the new wave of YouTube "anti-adblock" a month later. While in a literal losing court case thats suggesting Chrome be split out from Google as a whole. They must be so confident nothing can touch them.

j45 2 days ago

Youtube premium has remained adfree as far as I know.

Best to try it out yourself. I can't watch Youtube with Ads ever anymore.

If a 100% Ad-free youtube premium at the current price point ever went away, something would have to change about the ads.

  • lpcvoid 2 days ago

    Nah, Firefox with ublock origin is better than giving money to google.

    • iLoveOncall 2 days ago

      You also give money to the creators you watch by watching ads or watching with YouTube premium.

      You also can't block ads on iPhones, which a majority of the developed world uses. My girlfriend has never watched a YouTube video on something other than an Apple device for example.

      • lucb1e 2 days ago

        I'd rather send money to the people I want to support than fund a middleman

        > which a majority of the developed world uses

        ... the USA? It's not a majority in any other country that I'm aware of

        I've got a Eurocentric view though, I have e.g. no idea if Singapore or China has a majority of Apple users or where you draw the line on 'developed' (critique on the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Factfulness&oldid...)

      • heraldgeezer 2 days ago

        >You also can't block ads on iPhones, which a majority of the developed world uses. My girlfriend has never watched a YouTube video on something other than an Apple device for example.

        People really live like this... ? Like those who watch movies on their phones lmao.

        Also, Brave works on iphone -> m.youtube.com adfree :)

        Then again I went years not using conditioner and moisturiser for my skin, only deo... We all need tips from people who know better you know. (Im white.)

  • theoreticalmal 2 days ago

    I get an ad-free YouTube experience for $0 with software. Why do you pay for it?

    • cbeley 2 days ago

      Because I want to actually support content creators. I also want it to be more normalized to pay for things vs having ad supported content.

      • card_zero 2 days ago

        Do you think giving money to the world's largest ad agency will encourage them to change their business model?

      • lucb1e 2 days ago

        I don't think you're normalizing ad-supported content when running an ad blocker

        As for paying for the content you consume, most of the costs aren't on Google's side. I can understand paying for Youtube as a shortcut to hopefully giving some pennies to each person you watch, though, at least for those with no moral objection to making Google's/Youtube's monopoly in online video stronger

      • matheusmoreira 2 days ago

        Then subscribe to their Patreon instead of paying YouTube.

        • lucb1e 2 days ago

          I was a bit surprised to find that Patreon also keeps a pretty large commission. But, yeah, at least it's not owned by Google and what else are you going to do when most creators list this as their only option. I'm just confused when there's easy options like sending cash directly to their IBAN or using a nonprofit like Liberapay (they just have their own donation page and, instead of taking a cut, make money that way: https://liberapay.com/Liberapay)

      • fakedang 2 days ago

        Folks be adopting all sorts of irrational arguments just so they can defend their habits. Do you also prefer having middlemen in other areas such as healthcare and education?

        Creators can just as easily pop a Patreon or BuyMeACoffee these days in a few clicks. In fact, most creators constantly admit that Google pays them peanuts for their view counts. But support the leviathan for reasons unknown I guess.

    • dandellion 2 days ago

      Plus you can block shorts. You can't do that with premium.

      I got fed up and stopped paying for premium, now I get no shorts and no ads, it's a win-win.

naikrovek 2 days ago

I pay for YouTube premium for my family and there haven’t been any injected ads at all. Only the ones that the video themselves have in, which are also very annoying.

I can’t speak for the future, but I’ve had this for probably 5 years and I haven’t seen a single ad, only the videos that I’ve asked to see.

  • j45 2 days ago

    Same experience.

    The family plan is nice to share with family to reduce how much everyone's exposed to ads.

    In-Video sponsorships are a pain, sometimes they are chaptered out enough and can be skipped.

    If I could pay for an ad-free google search I probably would. Off the shelf, not doing API calls.

    • kenmacd 2 days ago

      <cough> SponsorBlock (https://sponsor.ajay.app/) <cough>

      It works amazingly well provided a video's been out for at least a half hour or so. It also has the option to skip the "like and subscribe" parts too.

      I also tried the https://dearrow.ajay.app/ extension to replace clickbait titles, but decided I'd rather know when a channel/video is too clickbait-y so I can block/unsubscribe.

      • ThunderSizzle 2 days ago

        I wish many of these suggestion worked for casting.

        Browser extensions don't fix a chromecast skipping ads, for example. It'd have to be written into the casting client, I'd presume.

        • j45 2 days ago

          Yeah, this can be a consideration, and also a non-issue with Youtube Premium

jorvi 2 days ago

Don't let everyone responding gaslight you. YouTube Premium is absolutely stuffed with ads[0] (sorry, 'promoted content' / 'sponsorship'). The only probable explanation I have for this is that Google has successfully boiled the frog and people mentally don't even register these things as ads anymore.

And that's not to mention pretty much every single creator stuffing sponsored sections into their videos now. We have Sponsorblock for now, but I imagine Google will try to introduce random offsets at some point which will render Sponsorblock mute. Maybe an AI blocker will rise up in the future?

At any rate, fight fire with fire. Just use every bit of adblocking on desktop, Revanced on Android and hope that Revanced or Youtube++ comes to iOS 3rd party stores at some point.

[0]https://imgur.com/a/3emEhsF

Edit: since people are too lazy to click on the link and instead ram the downvote button in blind rage, image 1 and 4 contain straight up ads, unconnected to creators.

  • jowea 2 days ago

    I think people just decided it doesn't count as ads when it's the creator doing it. And it feels more tolerable since the money is going to the creator that they probably like instead of megacorp Google.

    • jorvi 2 days ago

      1 and 4 contain straight up ads.

  • imiric 2 days ago

    I'm honestly baffled why anyone who objects to ads would still want to use any of the official YouTube clients. Whether or not they show ads to you on YouTube, they still track your every move and use it to improve their profile of you so that they can show you ads on any of their other platforms, sell your data, or whatever other shady business they do behind the scenes to extract value from it.

    Adtech cannot be trusted. I refuse to support their empire whether that's financially or with my data and attention.

  • userbinator 2 days ago

    And that's not to mention pretty much every single creator stuffing sponsored sections into their videos now.

    Fortunately I mainly watch the videos which are not made by "creators" looking for $$$ but just people sharing something interesting and useful; the ones which have no annoying intros or outros, "like share and subscribe" drivel, and are often not much more than raw unedited content. They still exist on YouTube.

ProllyInfamous 2 days ago

If you simply add a `-` (en-dash) between the `t` & 2nd `u` in the URL, your viewing experience automatically skips all external ads, without login/premium.

Syntax: www.yout-ube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w

This also works for playlists, and auto-repeats.

edit: is this getting downvoted because it works and people are worried this service might disappear should this bypass become too popular..? Just curious.