I've currently got AdBlock installed on Chrome, and it's awesome - Now I can watch Youtube without spending half an hour on commercials! But then again, I just started thinking, if I watch YouTubers that aren't that big but try to earn money, am I being immoral? I'm not giving them any money from ads. The same thing struck me here on Dakka; Is it immoral of me to have AdBlock?
I use adblock too, but, I whitelist youtubers I like and am subscribed to most of their Twitch channels too. As for Dakka, I've been a DCM for 3 years previously, that's a lot more money then any ads are going to make.
Matthew wrote: I've currently got AdBlock installed on Chrome, and it's awesome - Now I can watch Youtube without spending half an hour on commercials! But then again, I just started thinking, if I watch YouTubers that aren't that big but try to earn money, am I being immoral? I'm not giving them any money from ads. The same thing struck me here on Dakka; Is it immoral of me to have AdBlock?
Actually, I think on Youtube at the very least you get paid by people watching your video and I don't think Adblockers are monitored.
So the person makes money either way, at least on youtube. Other sites may have software that stops people who have adblockers from watching.
I'm sure Dakka is still getting paid even for clicks that generate from adblocker patrons.
Matthew wrote: I've currently got AdBlock installed on Chrome, and it's awesome - Now I can watch Youtube without spending half an hour on commercials! But then again, I just started thinking, if I watch YouTubers that aren't that big but try to earn money, am I being immoral? I'm not giving them any money from ads. The same thing struck me here on Dakka; Is it immoral of me to have AdBlock?
Actually, I think on Youtube at the very least you get paid by people watching your video and I don't think Adblockers are monitored.
So the person makes money either way, at least on youtube. Other sites may have software that stops people who have adblockers from watching.
I'm sure Dakka is still getting paid even for clicks that generate from adblocker patrons.
You're wrong. All income on youtube comes from ads. Though they did recently add a tip jar.
The owners of the video get paid from the advertisement money, and the amount is determined by how many people watch your video(and ostensibly see the add)
You might get paid a little extra if someone actually clicks on an add as well.
So unless they also have software which can determine if the watcher has Ad Block up, they'll get paid even if the person watching is using add block.
The owners of the video get paid from the advertisement money, and the amount is determined by how many people watch your video(and ostensibly see the add)
You might get paid a little extra if someone actually clicks on an add as well.
So unless they also have software which can determine if the watcher has Ad Block up, they'll get paid even if the person watching is using add block.
Ah, the way you worded it made me think you meant it other way around.
I have adblock too. Do they actually have a way to see how many people use adblock? If not, than it would not have any implications (less money) for the site/Youtuber.
In any case, I liked Dakka enough to throw a bit of money at it. Hope that makes up for using Adblock. Not that ads on Dakka are annoying, in fact, I found a few nice miniature sites via ads on Dakka.
It's not so much that they register people using adblock or anything, they just block ads from being played thus the ad is not attributed to whoever's content it was.
I think the ad is still there, the data packets are still trying to be delivered to the target IP address, they just never make it past the computer's firewall. So the ad would still get registered I think.
I work for a publishing company that writes and publishes factual and entertainment websites and makes money from selling the ad impressions that are served when people look at our journalism.
Only we don't make nearly so much money now as a few years ago because so many readers are using ad blockers that we cannot serve the ad impressions we are trying to sell to advertisers. It is real impressions that we sell to advertisers, not imaginary impressions.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?
The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.
Also, if it is at all within your power, stop using video ads which automatically play. Especially on sites I'm trying to watch videos on. It slows down my computer and drives me nuts.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?
The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.
That and ads that serve up viruses. Considering just about every site I go to that uses ads has had at least one "whelp better hope your AV is updated" post I feel somewhat justified.
I know Hulu registers whether you're blocking ads or not, and then forces you to sit there for the length of time the ad would run for.
I use Adblock because of the large number of intrusive and potentially harmful ads on websites. If it's a site that I want to support I'll whitelist it. Though there aren't many.
I use Adblock after having a couple of viruses attack that were in the adverts. It's not the fault of the forum, completely legit places are not in control of the advertising space, but if they're not safe I'm not taking the risk.
Ads are the highest security risk to any PC so disabling them is the best thing you can do to make your computer safe. Furthermore, the ad revenue for an individual user is absolutely laughable. Donate 3-5$ per month to people you really like to watch videos from and they'll earn much, much more than they'd do with ads. My wife got a few YouTube channels she loves and I watch a few video game shows and both of us just donate money to the makers via PayPal.
Soladrin wrote: I use adblock too, but, I whitelist youtubers I like and am subscribed to most of their Twitch channels too. As for Dakka, I've been a DCM for 3 years previously, that's a lot more money then any ads are going to make.
This. I'm sorry but don't try and guilt trip me into getting all those gak ads onto my computer internet persons. Many ads are ludicrously distracting. They can play sound and video or have distracting effects. You can get a lot of malware from ads too without the website owner even knowing.
As a adblock user and a frequenter of youtube, I feel it is NOT immoral. But I do miss some of the movie trailers. Without TV that was my only other way of really learning about new movies
I'd feel bad about it, but as others have said, there's some major issues with the amount of malware and tracking nastyness that ads pass on.
Even if that weren't the case, I actively feel good about blocking ads/javascript every time something reminds me of the "click the flashing ad to win a free ipod!!!!!1" ads, particularly the ones with sound.
I've got it turned off for YT, because I've not really had many instances where I can't possibly wait at most 3 and a half minutes for a pre-roll advert to run, and I've never encountered a 'bad' advert on YT in many years of use. On here, I'm a DCM, so adverts are off anyway. Most other places I go to don't use adverts, or I don't particularly care (see: Facebook).
I can't think of a reason to ever have it on on Youtube, especially if you watch certain channels a lot; all you're doing is stopping people from getting money for their content.
The owners of the video get paid from the advertisement money, and the amount is determined by how many people watch your video(and ostensibly see the add)
You might get paid a little extra if someone actually clicks on an add as well.
So unless they also have software which can determine if the watcher has Ad Block up, they'll get paid even if the person watching is using add block.
Youtubers do not get ad-revenue from ad-blocked adverts. A staggeringly large amount of people don't know this, and several people I watch have to restate it every now and then, like here (actual ad-block mentions start at 3:07):
The idea that Youtubers get revenue despite ad-block is a myth, likely made up by people trying to justify themselves blocking the ads.
Matthew wrote: But then again, I just started thinking, if I watch YouTubers that aren't that big but try to earn money, am I being immoral?
Immoral? Is there a commandment from God regarding Youtube viewing that I'm not aware of? I'm pretty certain "Thou shalt not block ads" is found nowhere in the bible.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why do you think so many are on patreon. Because, even Without adblack, they make people pennies.
Except for the ones that are getting 100k plus views.
Even then....
I read/watched something a while back about music artists and how much money they are making.... Signing contracts with Vevo (Vivo??), Pandora and the like are really, REALLY not good for the band members. The BAND as a whole makes around 1 album's worth of money (12-15 bucks in the US would get you a hard copy CD at most stores), from around 8 million views/listens.... Think about it, Lamb of God, a notable metal band's "official" Vevo video of their song, "Laid to Rest" has been viewed just over 4 million times. Based on that math, the band has made between 6 and 7 bucks. There's 4 dudes in that band, plus theres management fees, taxes, studio times that are probably not free, etc.
I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine that those youtube "celebrities" with their video blogs and crap are probably paid along the same lines as musical acts, where they are making literally less than a penny per view.
Do I respect some people who make videos, etc? Sure, if they are well done and have some effort put into them. (ie, they don't look like some overweight blob living in mom's basement on a webcam)
The problem is also the lack of diversity. I love watching on blip..and they are the same ads over and over. It to to the point I was reciting them.
That is annoying.
I have no problem using adblock.
Some sites (for instance roosterteeth) will slow their services if they detect that you're using adblock, and I really don't mind supporting them by deactivating it on their site.
I'm surprised to see that more websites haven't followed suite and made it more time consuming to use adblock than it is to sit through a commercial.
Squidmanlolz wrote: I have no problem using adblock.
Some sites (for instance roosterteeth) will slow their services if they detect that you're using adblock, and I really don't mind supporting them by deactivating it on their site.
I'm surprised to see that more websites haven't followed suite and made it more time consuming to use adblock than it is to sit through a commercial.
Because it's an arms race, they'll attempt it and adblock with a few quick patches can push through such things and make it as if they hadn't tried anything, at least from what I've seen.
2) I don't give a flying feth about your income, get a real job.
But if people followed this advice woudn't there be a severe lack of quality YouTube channels, therefore making the site a lot worse.
It would drive off every loser trying to make a quick buck by imitating the greats, leaving only people who make videos out of passion. Like it used to be.
Kilkrazy wrote: I work for a publishing company that writes and publishes factual and entertainment websites and makes money from selling the ad impressions that are served when people look at our journalism.
Only we don't make nearly so much money now as a few years ago because so many readers are using ad blockers that we cannot serve the ad impressions we are trying to sell to advertisers. It is real impressions that we sell to advertisers, not imaginary impressions.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Can't say I'm shedding tears over profits lost due to the company's inability to spam the utter living gak out of my computer's screen...
One prime example: Twitch.tv has ads that require you to mute them with a button INSIDE the ad. Even muting the stream doesn't do anything, you have to manually click it in order to mute the ad so the companies can check that you really watched the ad. That's incredibly insulting for any customer as you are forced to watch a (very loud and annoying) ad. Use Adblock and donate directly to the video producer. It's the best solution for everyone.
I'm conflicted on this. On the one hand I would like to see those sites that I frequent do well, and ads may help these sites remain financially viable. On the other I despise intrusive ads, and controversial articles with the intention of acting as click bait.
I can't think of a reason to ever have it on on Youtube
The irritating and usually wildly inappropriate adverts that play at the start of most videos? I don't get them anymore.
You can't sit through at most a 3 and a half minute video (or even do something else whilst it plays) so that the creator of the content you watch can get money? What part of it is so difficult that you need to remove it altogether? Get up and get a drink or go to the toilet, mute your headset or speakers, look at something else whilst the advert plays. I can't see what makes that advert such a huge inconvenience.
You can't sit through at most a 3 and a half minute video (or even do something else whilst it plays) so that the creator of the content you watch can get money?
Of course I can but why would I watch something crass and irritating for a product that I will have no interest in? Similarly I only watch TV programmes on demand or I pirate them as they are then blessedly advert free. Selfish? Perhaps but at least I don't have my time wasted quite as much now.
I loathe and despise advertising, luckily for me there are now ways to remove it from my life to at least some degree.
You can't sit through at most a 3 and a half minute video (or even do something else whilst it plays) so that the creator of the content you watch can get money? What part of it is so difficult that you need to remove it altogether? Get up and get a drink or go to the toilet, mute your headset or speakers, look at something else whilst the advert plays. I can't see what makes that advert such a huge inconvenience.
Thats not a moral argument. You could equally argue it is more moral as the ad company is not giving money to someone when they get nothing for it, as they would in the case of walking off.
Its a pure business choice. The person using ad blocker is making a choice available to them, quite legally. If this is not a financially viable model from the point of view of the content creator then they need to review their model. This is not the same as piracy where you are circumventing the model, you are just being upfront about not watching the adverts. People might not use it so much if companies would stop adverts that are intentionally intrusive. I don't mind adverts that appear at the side of the page, or start of a video, but once they start covering text or covering half the film then they can piss off.
It might be immoral, but I would have a really hard time feeling bad about it. Ads were simply out of control and switching on Ad block improved my experience so much. There was one page I went to that would occasionally brake from playing ads. They were more focused with make sure you watched the Ads then making sure their page worked. The bit I feel a little guilty about is that adblock is always on now so it basically punishes every page for the actions of a few. Oh the other hand, the internet is just so much nicer with adblock.
I whitelists ads for sites that I go to often, and which I know have fairly unintrusive ads. Fark.com is a great example of this - they don't allow autoplay ads, NSFW, ads that expand, or ads with sound. I once had an autoplay ad on the site and hit "report" out of curiousity, and I got an email from the admins within 15 minutes saying they've removed it from the rotation.
I'm not averse to ads in general but there is definitely a point where my desire to see you profit for your content is offset by my need to have a safe and pleasurable browsing experience. So, on the vast majority of sites I go to, adblock is on.
If you want that "free" YT or Twitch content then support the content creators by either watching the ads or buying their merch/donating to their Patreon.
While I think a 3 minute ad is too much for a 15 minute video, a 20 second soot won't kill you. Go grab some tea and let them get that ad revenue.
I adblock all websites except white listed ones because I'd rather not get some terrible virus or malware due to an ad.
I used adblock to get around ads on Crunchyroll (discovered this by accident) but still sat through ads on their mobile app. Finally subscribed because I was doing more mobile watching than PC watching.
Hulu is the vile corporate overlord for giving ads to their premium subscribers.
Sigvatr wrote: Ads are the highest security risk to any PC
I respectfully disagree. The highest security risk to any PC is the user himself/herself . Ads will not be able to do anything more than the rest of the webpage.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I read/watched something a while back about music artists and how much money they are making.... Signing contracts with Vevo (Vivo??), Pandora and the like are really, REALLY not good for the band members. The BAND as a whole makes around 1 album's worth of money (12-15 bucks in the US would get you a hard copy CD at most stores), from around 8 million views/listens.... Think about it, Lamb of God, a notable metal band's "official" Vevo video of their song, "Laid to Rest" has been viewed just over 4 million times. Based on that math, the band has made between 6 and 7 bucks. There's 4 dudes in that band, plus theres management fees, taxes, studio times that are probably not free, etc.
Is the aim of the music video to make money, or to promote the band? I am pretty sure the objective of signing with Vevo is not to get more money from your music video, just to be much more discoverable. In other word, it is a bit like advertisement, except they do get a few pennies out of it .
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine that those youtube "celebrities" with their video blogs and crap are probably paid along the same lines as musical acts, where they are making literally less than a penny per view.
They do not have to pay Vevo. And some, like Freddie Wong, sure seems to be making some money out of it.
Sigvatr wrote: One prime example: Twitch.tv has ads that require you to mute them with a button INSIDE the ad. Even muting the stream doesn't do anything, you have to manually click it in order to mute the ad so the companies can check that you really watched the ad. That's incredibly insulting for any customer as you are forced to watch a (very loud and annoying) ad. Use Adblock and donate directly to the video producer. It's the best solution for everyone.
Why use Adblock? If you pay the video producer, you usually get the stream without any ads. At least it works that way for Ogaming TV.
Does anyone knows an AdBlock equivalent where you can just have a blacklist of websites where the ads are blocked, rather than a whitelist? I generally like to either go with the ads or boycott the website if they use overly annoying ads, but there are a very few exceptions. For instance I really like to read some of Armin Arefi's articles, but the website of the newspaper he writes for has the worst ads, with video, sound, stuff popping above the text and all that gak.
Sigvatr wrote: Ads are the highest security risk to any PC
I respectfully disagree. The highest security risk to any PC is the user himself/herself . Ads will not be able to do anything more than the rest of the webpage.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I read/watched something a while back about music artists and how much money they are making.... Signing contracts with Vevo (Vivo??), Pandora and the like are really, REALLY not good for the band members. The BAND as a whole makes around 1 album's worth of money (12-15 bucks in the US would get you a hard copy CD at most stores), from around 8 million views/listens.... Think about it, Lamb of God, a notable metal band's "official" Vevo video of their song, "Laid to Rest" has been viewed just over 4 million times. Based on that math, the band has made between 6 and 7 bucks. There's 4 dudes in that band, plus theres management fees, taxes, studio times that are probably not free, etc.
Is the aim of the music video to make money, or to promote the band? I am pretty sure the objective of signing with Vevo is not to get more money from your music video, just to be much more discoverable. In other word, it is a bit like advertisement, except they do get a few pennies out of it .
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine that those youtube "celebrities" with their video blogs and crap are probably paid along the same lines as musical acts, where they are making literally less than a penny per view.
They do not have to pay Vevo. And some, like Freddie Wong, sure seems to be making some money out of it.
Sigvatr wrote: One prime example: Twitch.tv has ads that require you to mute them with a button INSIDE the ad. Even muting the stream doesn't do anything, you have to manually click it in order to mute the ad so the companies can check that you really watched the ad. That's incredibly insulting for any customer as you are forced to watch a (very loud and annoying) ad. Use Adblock and donate directly to the video producer. It's the best solution for everyone.
Why use Adblock? If you pay the video producer, you usually get the stream without any ads. At least it works that way for Ogaming TV.
Does anyone knows an AdBlock equivalent where you can just have a blacklist of websites where the ads are blocked, rather than a whitelist? I generally like to either go with the ads or boycott the website if they use overly annoying ads, but there are a very few exceptions. For instance I really like to read some of Armin Arefi's articles, but the website of the newspaper he writes for has the worst ads, with video, sound, stuff popping above the text and all that gak.
Actually, for instance everyone signed up with Polaris (guys like Totalbiscuit and the like) have to give a 45% cut of their ad money to YT, THEN Polaris (or whatever other network they are signed with) takes a cut (I think something like 8% but I doubt they have disclosed this) and the rest is what the content creator actually receives. So, yes, they certainly do have to give Vevo and other networks like it a cut.
A Youtube network, just like Vevo, machinima etc. Polaris is owned by Maker studios, which in turn is owned by Disney. (yes, this means Totalbiscuit works for Disney.)
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
I see it like this: If I saw the ads, I wouldnt click on them, wouldnt buy what theyre trying to sell, and would just ignore them. So why should I waste my time ignoring them if I could just turn on adblock?
Theyre getting the same thing out of me theyd usually would (complete disinterest) while I get to save some time.
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.
Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.
Kilkrazy wrote: I work for a publishing company that writes and publishes factual and entertainment websites and makes money from selling the ad impressions that are served when people look at our journalism.
Only we don't make nearly so much money now as a few years ago because so many readers are using ad blockers that we cannot serve the ad impressions we are trying to sell to advertisers. It is real impressions that we sell to advertisers, not imaginary impressions.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Can't say I'm shedding tears over profits lost due to the company's inability to spam the utter living gak out of my computer's screen...
You may when the websites you enjoy reading shut down because they can't afford to operate.
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.
Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.
If I remember correctly, not all of the channels were originally part of the network (I'm thinking Dodger, Jesse Cox, Crendor and some others). I may be completely misremembering things. whatever the case, I just became totally disinterested when it turned into Polaris.
You may when the websites you enjoy reading shut down because they can't afford to operate.
Then they should get less annoying ads. As time has gone on, internet ads have only become more and more obstructive and annoying. More than enough that if a site closes for it, not matter how much I like said site, I just can't endure the constant blast of annoying, loud, and obstructive. They literally make websites worse.
I think every app should be one for Victoria's Secret in which two gorgeous women are making out wearing nothing but VS apparel. I'd support the watching of those ads!
timetowaste85 wrote: I think every app should be one for Victoria's Secret in which two gorgeous women are making out wearing nothing but VS apparel. I'd support the watching of those ads!
I would buy a candy bar if it was marketed in this manner.
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.
Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.
If I remember correctly, not all of the channels were originally part of the network (I'm thinking Dodger, Jesse Cox, Crendor and some others). I may be completely misremembering things. whatever the case, I just became totally disinterested when it turned into Polaris.
Yeah they were, Husky was one of the founders and got everyone involved with TGS. TotalBiscuit got Jesse in from the WoW days.
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.
Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.
If I remember correctly, not all of the channels were originally part of the network (I'm thinking Dodger, Jesse Cox, Crendor and some others). I may be completely misremembering things. whatever the case, I just became totally disinterested when it turned into Polaris.
Yeah they were, Husky was one of the founders and got everyone involved with TGS. TotalBiscuit got Jesse in from the WoW days.
Must've completely misremembered that. Boy do I feel dumb
At this point I think I might just install ad blocker. The kinds of advertisements youtube shows me is just insulting, it's all weight or hairloss related, like youtube thinks I'm a fat bald guy. If it's not that then it's some terrible new age deepak chopra style crap pushing a book or a pill.
I think I prefer it when it's more targeted to the content I'm watching, IE adds for photographic or video stuff if I'm watching a channel dedicated to such things. Youtube is all over the map though.
It has the same result as installing an ad blocker except that the web site you like to read receives the advertising income and can continue to operate.
I can ignore ads which just sit there. I can't ignore ads which fill my screen and require me to dismiss the ad or ads that are autoplaying videos with sound and everything.
pretty much. I watched most of the guys and gals from Polaris before Polaris was a thing, and I feel like Polaris killed whatever they had going for them. Sure, they're more popular than ever but the quality is in the toilet compared to where it used to be.
Polaris is pretty much what Miramax used to be. It was super cool and indie then got so lost up its own ass that it can't find the way out.
Ehm, you are aware that they always were with Polaris right? It just used to be called The Game Station. The network was always there.
Formerly known as The Game Station, Polaris is Maker's sub-network for video game culture.[42] It includes channels such as PewDiePie, KSIOlajidebt, Vegetta777, Alexby11, UberHaxorNova, Chuggaaconroy, Markiplier, Dodger, Jesse Cox, SomeOrdinaryGamers, The Yogscast, Game Grumps, Totalbiscuit, Angry Joe, Rabbidluigi, Wartek, Wowcrendor, The Creatures, TheRunawayGuys, Shofu, Jontron, Egoraptor, Larry Bundy, Jr, Stampylonghead, IBallisticSquid, CaptainSparklez, ModernWarNegro, and AshleyMarieeGaming.
If I remember correctly, not all of the channels were originally part of the network (I'm thinking Dodger, Jesse Cox, Crendor and some others). I may be completely misremembering things. whatever the case, I just became totally disinterested when it turned into Polaris.
Yeah they were, Husky was one of the founders and got everyone involved with TGS. TotalBiscuit got Jesse in from the WoW days.
Must've completely misremembered that. Boy do I feel dumb
Eh, it's not actually all that important for the viewer anyway.
I can ignore ads which just sit there. I can't ignore ads which fill my screen and require me to dismiss the ad or ads that are autoplaying videos with sound and everything.
Indeed; Youtube likes to have three types of adds, the 60 minute ones that you can skip in 5 seconds, the three minute ones you can skip in five seconds, or the 30 second ones you can't. It's the last group that gets on my nerves the most, honestly.
Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.
Unethical?Is it unethical to skip an ad for a netflix series that seems boring that you cant watch anyway because you don't have netflix?I hope not....
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.
The thing is though, is that they make their money off of me (well, Advertisements, but those are directed at me). If they want me to watch verts, they HAVE to make them convenient for me.
Because if they don't pander to me, I don't see why I should pander to them; yes, Youtube needs Advertisement money to create content, but then I can go to Dailymotion or other sorts of video sites instead.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.
Perhaps the owners of those sites will have to accept that many of their visitors are put off by the ads they allow on their sites, and may fold as their viewers so elsewhere.
It has the same result as installing an ad blocker except that the web site you like to read receives the advertising income and can continue to operate.
Not really...ignoring advertisements still wastes seconds of my life that I'll never get back, whereas installing Adblock takes but a minute and lets me proceed directly to the content.
Some websites, like AR15.com, have a separate industry forum for their site sponsors. I don't see the sponsors' ads, but I regularly check the industry forum to see the latest deals. This way, (1) I'm actually USING the information as a consumer, not just having it involuntarily blasted directly into my face (do you like that visual? Because it's what internet advertising has basically devolved to accomplish), and (2) the website can still generate income from advertising. They can generate additional money through discount codes, skimming a portion of sales when consumers use site reference-specific discount codes.
Time for advertisers to adapt and overcome, rather than crying about the situation that they created in the first place. PS: most people don't install Adblock to deal with banners; they install it to deal with obnoxious gak like pop-ups and long videos that you can't skip past.
My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.
It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.
It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.
Would you pay for content free of ads?
As I already said multiple times...people need to re-value things they enjoy. The internet sadly created a "Everything should be free!" attitude among a lot of people and stuff just ain't free. The very best thing to do is to use Adblock and then directly donate an appropriate amount of money to the content creator. Everyone wins.
Kilkrazy wrote: Perhaps you will have to accept that the sites that feature that kind of advert either will fold or you will not visit them and just visit sites with less obtrusive adverts.
There is also an interesting side cost for the poor suckers on 'metered' bandwidth connections where the ad will theoretically cost them money directly or offset the amount of bandwidth they can use for viewing actual content. In this day and age where some HTML requests result in megabytes of 'stuff' to see about 10kb worth of content, it seems justified not only to block ads, but also limit loading images, javascript, and css as much as possible.
It's funny you should ask, I made the mistake once of paying for the onion, stupidly thinking it would free me from the adds, particularly the ones on their video content where it's the same ad for like 2 weeks straight before and after every video. Sadly it turns out I was paying for the privilege of being advertised to, no thanks.
Moral? Of course adblock isn't moral, but it is no more immoral than the tantamount theft that these forced adverts are.
Some youtubers I watch now have been doing their own in video adverts for things they enjoy, I don't mind these as much, because I wouldn't be watching their channel if we didn't at least have some views in common, so there is at least a decent chance I'll be interested in what the ad has to offer (almost audible.com, almost...). Why can't people do more of that?
Oh wait, YouTube has decided they aren't going to allow content creators to do that anymore because they can't really control that revenue stream. Is it their right as a business to take their business model in that direction? Of course it is, but that doesn't make it the smart decision either.
See, I don't mind stuff like how Deathbattle does it; the episodes are sponsored by various businesses (Netflix, Crunchyroll, other things) and they say
"This Episode is brought to you by XXXXXXX"
*Bunch of video content*
"Before the deathbattle, ADVERTISEMENT!"
*Deathbattle*
I'm ok with this kind of thing, because Its usually something I would look into anyway.
I dislike adverts, generally and so I have adblock installed.
Dakka I have whitelisted, as I know that ads here are relevant and unobtrusive but most places I go they remain blocked.
Advertising now has become so obnoxious it can be difficult to ignore so I would much rather it be gone entirely.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.
It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.
Would you pay for content free of ads?
I think you're way off mark here. The content won't disappear. If people find something interesting, there will always be a market. The market doesn't just disappear. It might recede over a very long period of time.
The producers of the product can disappear. And that's what will happen if video producers aren't getting their money. But the consumer will continue wanting the product. And someone will give it to them. Whoever makes the better product will get the attention of the market. In this case, it will be the ones who can run their site without plugging adverts in before the video. And out of these product producers, whoever can do it with the most financial success has a high chance of coming out on top.
Technically, though, you aren't paying for content with a DCM. You're paying for additional benefits such as changing your title, higher mod tolerance, no ads etc.
I have no problems using adblock. I'm here for my amusement and benefit, and sitting through lengthy ads on youtube or having constant pop ups or those weird MMO borderline sexual ads is not beneficial to me. It's annoying. It wastes my time or is an eyesore.
So I block them. No twinge of guilt from me either. Deciding to be self employed on the internet is a major risk, and one the content creator chose. If they get burned it's their own fault.
One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?
The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.
This is having the effect of reducing the amount of money we have to spend on journalism.
Undoubtedly but if adverts weren't so intrusive and frankly irritating then people wouldn't need to use Adblock, or in my case Adblock edge which kills everything, then would there?
The widespread use of Adblock is a backlash to the heavy handed tactics that advertisers use to foist unwanted products on potential consumers.
That and ads that serve up viruses. Considering just about every site I go to that uses ads has had at least one "whelp better hope your AV is updated" post I feel somewhat justified.
And this.
I didn't use AdBlock for a long time, I was content to just do the "let it play while I get a cup of tea"/ignore the banner thing, but the people serving the ads were not content with that. THEY started using intrusive Flash ads with default sound levels so high they blew my headphones. THEY started using banner ads with borderline-epilepsy-inducing flashing and bright colours to try and draw attention. THEY started using popup ads that required me to allow Javascript to run for some random unknown domains in order to dismiss it and actually view the content. THEY allowed their systems to be hijacked as vectors for spreading malware. And so they have nobody to blame but themselves that people decided enough was enough.
Kilkrazy wrote: My point is that eventually the content you want to proceed quickly towards won't be there, because the creator lost the income needed to create it due to you installing an ad blocker.
It doesn't matter if you find my argument convincing though because the industry will find a balance anyway. The balance might be no content or just gak content, though.
Would you pay for content free of ads?
And to continue the above; content producers also have nobody to blame but themselves, because THEY chose to use the kind of ad services I described above. Content providers abused users' trust for years with giant, loud, intrusive, malware-ridden ads, and now they are reaping the rewards of that behaviour. You can try and pretend this is the users' fault all you like, the fact is the only reason software like AdBlock even exists is the online ad industry and the content providers who used them made themselves so irritating that people were willing to sit down and code sophisticated software for free to confound their efforts.
Sienisoturi wrote: One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.
But you do have the description, comments and rating system to decide whether or not the video is worth watching.
Sienisoturi wrote: One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.
But you do have the description, comments and rating system to decide whether or not the video is worth watching.
There might be no description, and the rating and comment systems are highly unreliable.
Sienisoturi wrote: One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.
But you do have the description, comments and rating system to decide whether or not the video is worth watching.
There might be no description, and the rating and comment systems are highly unreliable.
And you trust film and video game reviews? Those are equally unreliable.
Sienisoturi wrote: One could also make the argument that in the case of You tube, because you have no way to know what is the actual content of the video before you watch it, it is highly immoral to make you "pay" for the video before hand. Also, somebody will probably make the point that that is the case also with movies and games, but infact it is not, as widespread reviews are available.
But you do have the description, comments and rating system to decide whether or not the video is worth watching.
There might be no description, and the rating and comment systems are highly unreliable.
And you trust film and video game reviews? Those are equally unreliable.
Have you actually read the Youtube comments before? I'm pretty sure Film and Game reviews don't start veering into racist/homophobic bouts of shouting as soon as someone disagree's.
That's not the point that I was making. Sure the youtube comments sections are the absolute dregs of the internet, but at least they aren't payed to give positive reviews like critics are in the video game and film industries.
The point of the matter is that neither is a great indicator of the quality of the product.
The premise that it's immoral to make you pay before you get something is flawed. I mean it's not all that smart to plop down money before you have a feeling of what you get, but there isn't really a moral argument that it's immoral to do something stupid. (OK there maybe is, but I won't make it for you.) I mean you buy your tooth paste before you read the reviews. (They don't even have reviews.) The other week I went to a high school play, they made me pay before they let me watch even I mean the nerve.
nomotog wrote: The premise that it's immoral to make you pay before you get something is flawed. I mean it's not all that smart to plop down money before you have a feeling of what you get, but there isn't really a moral argument that it's immoral to do something stupid. (OK there maybe is, but I won't make it for you.) I mean you buy your tooth paste before you read the reviews. (They don't even have reviews.) The other week I went to a high school play, they made me pay before they let me watch even I mean the nerve.
Yes, but unlike your high school play example, when you purchased your ticket for the play, you knew what the play was going to be about, so you at least had a decent idea that it is what you wanted to watch (or you wouldn't have bought the ticket in the first place). With YouTube ads, all you have to decide whether to watch it or not is a thumbnail, an author and a title, they are hardly comparable scenarios.
nomotog wrote: The premise that it's immoral to make you pay before you get something is flawed. I mean it's not all that smart to plop down money before you have a feeling of what you get, but there isn't really a moral argument that it's immoral to do something stupid. (OK there maybe is, but I won't make it for you.) I mean you buy your tooth paste before you read the reviews. (They don't even have reviews.) The other week I went to a high school play, they made me pay before they let me watch even I mean the nerve.
Yes, but unlike your high school play example, when you purchased your ticket for the play, you knew what the play was going to be about, so you at least had a decent idea that it is what you wanted to watch (or you wouldn't have bought the ticket in the first place). With YouTube ads, all you have to decide whether to watch it or not is a thumbnail, an author and a title, they are hardly comparable scenarios.
I didn't know what the play was about. I knew the name, I knew some of the actors and the director. I didn't even get a thumbnail. Your not going to really know a lot about a lot of stuff before you buy. You can have a good sense of quality by who did it or recommendations, but heck a lot of things are spoiled when you know what happens.
There is a ethical argument to make that the cost of a youtube video is too small to actually care though. It's 30 seconds of time for that first ad, but trying to make a quality assessment of a video looking up reviews and comments can take more time then that. It's just cheaper to roll the dice ant watch the add. (That is a unitgolist argument I think?)
.
