YouTube runs experiment addressing users with ad blocker

[tom66]

I'm actually surprised that YT hasn't put more effort into script obfuscation. Its still possible to set/clear unobfuscated variable names, instead of choosing completely random ones (as an anti-scraping technique used by some sites)..

Or the truly nasty technique that Facebook uses (making accessibility crap too, but not that they care).
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fxx7ctkimcte21.jpg

Not that I need another reason not to use Facebook.

[RJSV]

(MathWizard, et al:)
   I saw your comment, comparing YouTube with cable TV (favorably).
However, before I go to ask at the local recreation Dept. Computer Training class, must ask,
Do other users seeing the YouTube screen format, where it's now just a blank white screen, with a tiny window...showing ADs ?
   Seems like yt is slowly catching everything up to that 'blank' screen, if unsubscribed.  Older videos more likely to do it the old way, that is the screen has initial view, of video, with big arrow to start the video.

   Icons not working, either, on that 'blank' white screen...

[Bicurico]

Today the anti-ad banner got more agressive: it now has a timer before you can click the X and close the stupid pop-up.

Also, I question if they haven't lowered the quality - even at FullHD the picture looks bad. Not sure if the video creator messed this up or if it is indeed caused by Youtube.

The more I think and read about it, the less sympathy I have for Youtube. I won't pay for Youtube even if ultimately I lose access to it.

[AVGresponding]

Yeah, they're rolling it out in stages across different areas; I went past that stage about a week ago, and I'm blocked from watching anything now, unless I disable my adblock.

Consequently, most of my viewing is now on Odysee, and I'm only watching stuff I really can't stand to miss on YT.

[madires]

The more I think and read about it, the less sympathy I have for Youtube. I won't pay for Youtube even if ultimately I lose access to it.

With all the bad things YouTube is doing (demonetization, invalid traffic issue, zero human response, etc) I won't support them either by paying for a subscription. Good riddance!

[MK14]

The more I think and read about it, the less sympathy I have for Youtube. I won't pay for Youtube even if ultimately I lose access to it.

With all the bad things YouTube is doing (demonetization, invalid traffic issue, zero human response, etc) I won't support them either by paying for a subscription. Good riddance!

I'm not entirely convinced by their (YouTube's) business plans.

Since the real YouTube Video creators, have to spend actual money, time and other resources, into making these videos.

If the viewership dwindles away, because of all these various antics by YouTube.  E.g. Down to 50% of what it was.

Then the various creators will get a lot less money from YouTube themselves (as the viewing figures will drop to e.g. 50% of what they were).

Similarly, creators revenue from other sources would diminish (again, perhaps by 50%, unless people who pay for YouTube premium, might be more likely to pay for Patreon, so maybe not that much of a drop?), because there would be much less viewers, to pay for Patreon or give product sponsorship deals value for money.

So they could end up destroying or damaging the platform.  Eventually leading to other companies, taking over the slack.

On the other hand.  Running YouTube, is probably extremely expensive, with extensive servers, electric power consumption, internet traffic bandwidth, staff, payments to creators and many other costs of running such a massive, global business.  So it is not a clear cut, black and white situation.

[ataradov]

It is not going to dwindle. There is a vocal minority of people that complain. Others will either sit though the ads or pay the subscription fee. People already pay for a lot of streaming services. They will just have to juggle one more.

For me personally, YT constitutes 90% of the media consumption, and subscription fee is absolutely worth it. But I'm not subscribed to any other streaming services because they are of no value to me.

[MK14]

It is not going to dwindle. There is a vocal minority of people that complain. Others will either sit though the ads or pay the subscription fee. People already pay for a lot of streaming services. They will just have to juggle one more.

For me personally, YT constitutes 90% of the media consumption, and subscription fee is absolutely worth it. But I'm not subscribed to any other streaming services because they are of no value to me.

Maybe, it won't dwindle.  But I wouldn't like to bet my own money, on that being the case.  A number of creators on YouTube, seem to be generally unhappy with the service it offers, for various reasons.

Such as channels suddenly being closed down, with little or no come-back, with human contact ways of talking to google (YouTube).

The creators seem to be receiving too little money from YouTube, to pay for stuff and make it worthwhile.

Microsoft (windows) and some other companies seem to show that once you get an apparent monopoly.  It is very difficult, for other business's to move in on your act.  Even if that company, seems to be doing a terrible service, horrible products, charging too much money, etc.

E.g. Some people think Microsoft windows is going to become a subscription only service.  Many say if that happens, they will move away from windows permanently.

So, it is not clear (to me at least), if some of these companies (YouTube/Google, Microsoft, Twitter etc) will end up self-destructing or not, in the longer term.

[ve7xen]

Such ads would be detectable because they offer the ability to either skip them or click on them to access other content.  The timecodes for this information would need to be provided to the client.  They can do traditional TV-style advertisement with no interaction, but that would probably not be that popular amongst advertisers (they -love- interaction.)  YouTube also precaches a huge amount at local datacenters; they want to supply each user with different ads. Encoding that into the stream is difficult. They can mux it into the stream but such muxes are detectable because they would break the I/P/B frame sequence of the video (or the equivalent for AV1/whatever Google use).

They would probably be detectable with the metadata, even if obscured - it would be annoying to keep up with this for the blockers. However if Google refuses to send the stream segments significantly ahead of their realtime target start, then this doesn't achieve much. You could block the ad from displaying based on the metadata, but you can't skip ahead if Google won't send you those frames early.

It's not trivial, but I don't think it's beyond an entity like Google to mux the ads into the stream. They rencode everything uploaded anyway, so they can place I frames where they need them (or keep track of precisely where the natural ones are in the original stream). I think they actually already do something similar to try to place ads at natural cuts in the source material, though it doesn't work that well, presumably it relies on I-frame placement, that would be the simplest way to make such a guess. Their caches are already intelligent enough to support DASH segmented streaming, so it would not be a huge stretch to assemble the video stream per-user, whether the client is using DASH or traditional HTTP, they 'just' need to serve a virtual stream that the web server can assemble from different files. Technically it seems quite achievable. Not allowing users to grab segments before they should seems like the harder part, and requires more state to keep track of where each player is (supposed to be) at, but all the information needed is there to do it.

I am just not sure it's worth it, it would definitely make other things like seeking difficult to implement for ad-based clients, and I guess simply taking the 'block the ad blockers' actions they have done will mostly achieve the goal of increasing ad views.

I've no issue with image based ads or even ads below the video, ads in search results, that kind of thing.  I just don't like the pre-roll and mid video ads.  YouTube premium is just a bit too expensive for my taste, if it was around £5-6 per month that might be more reasonable but at £12 per month (at least in the UK) it's as expensive as Netflix and the like when the production value and costs are far lower (especially given most YouTubers earn more from sponsors than the ad revenue).

I do think the price is a bit steep, but I think the 'low production value' user generated content is exactly what is compelling about it. I watch far more YouTube than any other media, and it is exactly because most of what I watch is relatively niche and would never have enough viewers to support TV-level production value. In fact, much of what I enjoy watch would probably be ruined by increased production value to that level; the off the cuff stuff, the failed projects, the hour long 'AMA' videos and so on. The main selling point to me is exactly that - the 'not profitable enough' content. I justify it with the included YouTube Music subscription.

Production costs might be lower (hard to say overall, there is orders of magnitude more content produced) but I suspect YouTube's operating costs are much higher, they host way more content, need to develop and maintain user-facing production and streaming tools, and I guess get a lot more views.

[Bicurico]

I tried to run a specific YouTube channel about satellite reception and professional field meters. These can cost several thousand Euros.
I made some videos and got views in the order of a few hundred, in other words, totally unprofitable. Of course I already owned said equipment, but I wouldn't be able to purchase such devices to maintain a flow of new videos.
On the other hand, I accidentally noticed that there were videos of budgie (small birds) chatting. They existed so that your single budgie could listen to other budgies. These videos were like 2 hours still image with a recording of a flock of birds chatting. They had millions of views.
That was the day that I understood that monetising YouTube videos requires to produce videos for large audiences and not niche themes. Those need to be fed by free content.
This is the free content that YouTube is killing.

[ataradov]

YouTube created the ability to do any of that in a first place. Now they fed up with hosting videos that cost more money to host than the value they bring in. The content is "free" to you because you don't care about storage and hosting costs, but YT needs to worry about that.

You can't have a channel with few hundred views and expect to make a living. Many channels start small and then transition into full-time if content is interesting. If your channel did not pick up, you either can't present it correctly or the topic is just something nobody cares about.

[Bud]

There is Nothing on youtube videos that cannot be found as static content on html WEB. If they (Youtube) disappear tomorrow there will be Zelch impact on information availability.

[MK14]

There is Nothing on youtube videos that cannot be found as static content on html WEB. If they disappear tomorrow there will be Zelch impact on information availability.

It is rather convenient, to have so much stuff, presented to you as options using the AI and software, as well as a huge set of videos, that can be searched from the search bar.

Also, its general characteristics, such as the video player features/controls are the same for the different videos that can be played back.  Which is also helpful.

But some things are annoying, such as the removal of the display of the dislike votes, and other annoying things, some or many of which have already been mentioned in this thread.

[thm_w]

There is Nothing on youtube videos that cannot be found as static content on html WEB. If they (Youtube) disappear tomorrow there will be Zelch impact on information availability.

Clearly false.
There are many people that post their experiments/science/teardowns/lectures/whatever exclusively to youtube and nowhere else. Whether you value that information or not is a different argument.

[ataradov]

Just results from the Applied Science alone are enough to disprove that statement. Sure, he relies on the information available out there, but he also contributes a significant portion back. And that only exists as a video.

Otherwise you can argue that all the information exists in printed books and screw the web, it has no value.

[hans]

According to appstores, a plugin like uBlock Origin has 10M(+) active users on Chrome and Edge. Around 7-8M on FF.
If other sources are to be believed, YT has a monthly user activity of 2.7B. The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

This is a classic case of users with strong opinions thinking they have more stake for a business than they actually have. For sure, I do value strong opinions when based on principles - and by that I'm pro adblock - but this is not going to bring YT down as a platform at all. If any, advertisers are willing to pay more because YT is aggressively countering adblockers. And what if YT does lose 10-20% viewers? Their platform growth may take a hit 0.5-1 year growth worth. Their revenue wouldn't go down, because we didn't watch ads anyhow. But they also save costs that have netted zero revenue for years. Gross margins goes up. Shareholders happyface.

I said earlier that I think pirates will eventually win. Yes; for the people that want to go into the effort, there will always be a way.
But hands up if anyone pays here for Spotify? Its a similar amount per month. I listen to music more than I consume YT. Should I reward creative processes more than a similar grindy process of someone making videos? Doubtful. But I still pay for Spotify, because I don't want to spend time on sourcing my music from shady sites, varying quality, and having to worry about archivin and sorting it.

And yes, I agree that YT holds some unique content. Whether video is the most suitable for all content, also doubtful. But unique nonetheless.

[thm_w]

According to appstores, a plugin like uBlock Origin has 10M(+) active users on Chrome and Edge. Around 7-8M on FF.
If other sources are to be believed, YT has a monthly user activity of 2.7B. The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

Add another 10M for adblock, 10M for adblock plus, maybe 50 million users all in? (I'm assuming they all block youtube ads, may not).
Monthly user activity is high yes, though daily is only 122 million. Premium youtube users 80 million. So 50 million is fairly large compared to either of those numbers, which are probably the ones they care about IMO.

Though the adblock/ublock user numbers might also be inflated.

[langwadt]

According to appstores, a plugin like uBlock Origin has 10M(+) active users on Chrome and Edge. Around 7-8M on FF.
If other sources are to be believed, YT has a monthly user activity of 2.7B. The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

This is a classic case of users with strong opinions thinking they have more stake for a business than they actually have. For sure, I do value strong opinions when based on principles - and by that I'm pro adblock - but this is not going to bring YT down as a platform at all. If any, advertisers are willing to pay more because YT is aggressively countering adblockers. And what if YT does lose 10-20% viewers? Their platform growth may take a hit 0.5-1 year growth worth. Their revenue wouldn't go down, because we didn't watch ads anyhow. But they also save costs that have netted zero revenue for years. Gross margins goes up. Shareholders happyface.

I said earlier that I think pirates will eventually win. Yes; for the people that want to go into the effort, there will always be a way.
But hands up if anyone pays here for Spotify? Its a similar amount per month. I listen to music more than I consume YT. Should I reward creative processes more than a similar grindy process of someone making videos? Doubtful. But I still pay for Spotify, because I don't want to spend time on sourcing my music from shady sites, varying quality, and having to worry about archivin and sorting it.

And yes, I agree that YT holds some unique content. Whether video is the most suitable for all content, also doubtful. But unique nonetheless.

there's a helluva lot of music is on YT

[coppercone2]

I like how every media service that tries to get greedy fails.

and with the cheapness of storage, and decreasing cost of internet, trying to contain media is more and more silly!

soon its gonna be like AI's scraping content and registering their own websites automatically lol

I think the dream of getting rich by running a automated database is a fallacy, its going to get burgled so hard lol. I have a feeling they want to reduce the company to a single board member running the service through a phone app.

getting services from professionals is cool, getting access to a robot ain't. and it pisses people off so much they fighting it for free.

it almost feels like with youtube, greed means you are losing X% of the human population spending time learning (be it arts or trade) / day and its counter productive to growth of society. its like related to national health I think. How easy is it for a average citizen to find immediate entertainment or distraction seems like a realistic metric for general quality of life, well being, crime reduction, so forth?

I think this stuff their implementing is messing up the eco system. You damn well know the board has some overly simplified model of what is happening but really its quite a biome and there could be disastrous results (kind of like how honey bees are related to basically everything) to the website. Always makes me think of toll bridges and robber barons of the mideaval age. The argument was that the little fiefdoms would go bankrupt if you got rid of the river castles (toll booths on the river) but it lead to the formation of great nations with tons of social benefits (compared to the middle ages). I imagine tons of people heard that you need to pay a fees to flow through the rhine and they were like 'fuck this water transport shit! that will never go anywhere!'

[Bud]

The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

If that is the case, then why Youtube gets in so much effort (which almost feels desperate) to fight ad blockers off.

[SiliconWizard]

The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

If that is the case, then why Youtube gets in so much effort (which almost feels desperate) to fight ad blockers off.

Yeah, I have no clue about the real figures. Absolutely zero. It's very likely more than 1%, but I don't know. I'd say more like in the order of 25%-30%.
Yes, even on mobile devices using ad blockers is not too hard. Only if you use the YT mobile app, you can't block anything, but if you use a web browser to watch YT, then you can block most ads on mobile phones and tablets too.

But even if that was just a couple %, that means that's roughly a couple % shaved off their revenue, hence their growth. Any % matters for the shareholders.
They probably have considerable pressure, not just from their shareholders, but from their clients (the people who buy ad space) as well, to curb ad blocking altogether. And they don't want to risk losing clients. That may be the main reason, rather than being just excessively "greedy".

And yes, their clients don't give a damn about users' privacy and tranquility, they just pay to shove as much ad content as possible up yours, and if YT can't quite deliver that, they'll get angry. Nice world really.

[ataradov]

It is just a low hanging fruit. I've been a part of some limited adblocker block test many years ago (2016 or something like that). All of a sudden adblockers stopped working and I tried to see if anyone else has that problem, and I found a few people complaining on the forums, but the only answers were "works for me". I could not stand the ads, so I paid for  YouTube Red and have been paying since then.

So, if a simple nudge can generate some revenue, why not?

[hans]

The people that go into so much effort to block ads is fairly small. I don't want to make it out to be <1%, but its not going to be that massive many-dozens-of-percents chunk either I expect.

If that is the case, then why Youtube gets in so much effort (which almost feels desperate) to fight ad blockers off.

Because they can get away with it. Just look at how the false DMCA claims have rolled; it has been going on for years from obvious copyright trolls, and the content creators+viewers combined don't have enough force to do anything about it.

This will likely be a similar battle. A popup urging to stop adblocking is a pretty mild measure. If it then blocks playback, its mediocre at best. Technologically I think this attempt will fail, as the JS runs client-side and can be manipulated (in FF). Alternative players exist (even mpv or VLC) that just grab the right videostream from YT's APIs. Such battle would continue unless they go into extreme measures like paywalling the whole platform or require logging in and banning accounts that dont adblock and somehow fail to spoof being a legit YT client.

The market share for adblocks for sure wont be <=1%. But I don't think it's more than 30-40% either. Ofcourse it will differ per content category, as I'm sure it would be fairly high for tech YT channels (maybe surpassing 50% there), however its perhaps an all-time low for channels that post cartoons for kids or mainstream music. (Guess which market is bigger) People will put those videos on with their phone, tablet or TV and don't always have the option to install adblockers.

Hypothetically if the overall adblock percentage is say >10% or more, then I'm sure advertisers and shareholders want to see those numbers go down. Probably in a similar fallacy as 1 pirated copy=1 missed sale. That's not how that works as consumer opportunism and platform choice is ignored. For exactly why in this point in time they start.. I don't know.. YT is corporate so somehow higher up must have given a 'GO' sign to roll these measures out.

[tom66]

I think the false DMCA claims are another matter.  It's a simple case of verifying a claim being expensive, with a high consequence (lawsuit for damages) applying if they get a false negative, and a low consequence if they get a false positive (losing out on a little ad revenue).  So their policy is to err more on believing that the DMCA claim is legitimate.  DMCA and copyright law in general needs to be reformed to prevent this.  It's absurd that copyright law could apply for more than 150 years.  It should be more like a patent.  You should be able to remix original Star Wars now; Disney/Lucasfilm/etc have made plenty from it.

[madires]

It becomes even more insane when you realize that you're paying for being bothered by ads. Meanwhile ads have a reversed impact on me. When they bother me too much I'll remember to not buy that product or service.