Google Cracks Down on Adblock

[Redryhno]

If Google doesn't make any money off the ad-block crowd, then LET THEM jump ship

There's no reason to keep them. People forget that. If you ad-block, you usually give up your right to be heard. Some will do so anyway (like Fakku), but it's not a bad idea to ignore them.

If you say so, I'd say it's a pretty shitty idea if you're dependent on ads in some form or another. I mean, if you put in obtrusive ads, you lose the right to complain when people get rid of them by any means necessary. If your userbase has some major technical problem with the site, you don't ignore them because they're filthy adblockers, you actually look at it and try to fix your site. Because it may have more consequences than just affecting adblock users. Not to mention there's so many bugs in games and websites in general that have far reaching domino effects. So much of it is just a ball of yarn that isn't all that well put together.

 

[marioandsonic]

Well, guess Google just gave thousands of people a reason to switch to Firefox.

Smart thinking there, Google!

 

[CrossGuard]

That's alright Google, I'll just stop using your browser.

 

[weirdee]

Main reason I exercise control over my browser with such tools like NoScript (edit: I checked and there's equivalents for Chrome, so whatever it is, for that also) is that ads either make pages load significantly slower with such shit like Flash and full length videos, or might be carrying malicious bullshit, neither of which I want to be the gracious host in those situations. If ads just went back to their stupid static images or even distracting gifs that don't make dumb noises or block my screen if I accidentally mouse over them, I would gladly let them do whatever they want as long as it's not bmp or covers more than 12 square inches (which is unlikely in our mobile based world anyway).

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

HAH. I don't use Adblock, but my siblings and parents do. I'm gonna give them a shout and see if this is driving them up the wall.

If Google doesn't make any money off the ad-block crowd, then LET THEM jump ship

There's no reason to keep them. People forget that. If you ad-block, you usually give up your right to be heard. Some will do so anyway (like Fakku), but it's not a bad idea to ignore them.

It depends. I agree in cases where all or most of your revenue comes from ads, though if you get money from subscriptions or merchandise (like Fakku), the ad-blockers are probably worth keeping.

 

[webkilla]

I recall some early digital TVs that experimented with disabling the remote if you switched channels over onto a commercial break, forcing viewers to either turn the TV off or watch all the commercials.

Ya... lets just say that the company making them didn't last long.


You cannot force people to watch adverts. If Google doesn't want to allow ad-blocking scripts on their browser, then just remove it from the addon-store and block them (oh the irony)

...but this? this is scummy. This will not gain them any favor.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Ugh... The article that talks about youtube's profits mentions them trying to get more 'autoplaying' videos.
Those are the worst thing anyone has ever come up with.
Especially when they get used for ads.

I noted that youtube has actually removed the option to turn off 'autoplay' on playlists.
Gone completely.
That's just absurd.
And gets so annoying...

ugh.

No wonder they have this problem.

The internet clearly has a revenue problem of some kind.
Like the concept of getting paid for creative works in general has always been on pretty shaky ground, due to it's very nature, but it's like the internet has exposed this innate weakness and amplified it to the extent that the very idea of commercially made creative works is starting to come apart at the seams.

Unfortunately, we've constructed a society that insists on people being able to be 'self-sufficient' in terms of finding a way to get paid directly for what they do in life.

That seems to be a combination of influences that will either force society to change, or collapse the very concept of a 'creative' industry completely.
Or at least, one that depends on the internet for it's survival.

So... Yay. Is the future going to be a good place? Or a horrible mess?
Who knows.

But there are so many dystopian corporate feudalism tendrils showing up nowadays, I'm expecting a hellish orwellian cyberpunk nightmare is our future....

What am I talking about?
No! I don't want to take my meds! You're just trying to make me forget again aren't you? So you can fill my mind with those weird images again...
What do they even mean!?

 

[EHKOS]

Oh, don't take the high road Google, all I get are Bud Light commercials over and over again. I don't think I've seen anything else since I got my phone. The PC version of Adblock still works fine for me though.

 

[Teoes]

Eh, doesn't bother me. I wouldn't use Adblock on YouTube anyway, because I don't care about having to ignore a few seconds' worth of ad in order to generate a little revenue for a YouTuber.

 

[lancar]

Ads pay for free content.
There is no way around that fact. If you use patreon or donations as a means to pay for content, it's no longer free for you. You will have chosen to pay for something that was free, in order to better support the individual(s) making it (I approve, btw).

That Google try to combat AdBlock in order to raise their profits is neither surprising or unjustified.
Granted Google have other avenues in which they make craptonnes of money, and I would 'get' the outrage if the Youtube revenue system was seedy or anti-gamer... but it's not. It's a simple ad system, a similar (apart from the whole deal of where they get the info on what to target you with) one to what has been used since the beginning of television. Youtube may have other faults, like the content flagging crap or strike-first-ask-questions-later approach to copyright, but the ad system is simple and straightforward.

Block it if you want, but don't complain if google doesn't like you for doing it.

Lets face it. Putting up with ads is a very, very cheap method of paying someone for content.

 

[bazingabro]

I downloaded uBlock after finding out Adblock doesn't block ads from certain sites like Reddit. (I have Escapist whitelisted though!)

Is there any way to whitelist individual YouTube channels?

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

The biggest problem with adblock is that everyone using adblock right now, no matter what their reasons, would HATE the other option. Currently we all watch content on the internet FOR FREE because we have to put up with 5 seconds (or 30 seconds OH YOU POOR THING) of a car commercial, for anything from a 5 minute video to as many hours as you can stand Nyan Cat.

There are a lot of arguments against ads, a lot of them very poor, but at the end of the day all it takes is a few seconds of your time, you pay nothing and the content creator can be paid to produce more content and Youtube (other hosting companies are available) can be paid to host that content.

The other two options are a lot worse. The first is one that is already happening, but isn't too bad. Simply put, advertising IN the videos. A lot of the more famous podcasts are being paid by square space and companies like it to put an ad in their show.

However, the second option is one that no-one wants. Simply put, paying for the content. It seems horrible, what a crazy idea, having to pay to watch things on the internet! But if the websites are having ads blocked, and therefore not gaining enough money to keep hosting/providing for these content creators then they will have to turn to a paywall. The current system is pretty much the best system we could hope for, but a lot of people think "Nah, I can't waste 30 seconds of my precious time to ignore something so that the content I like can be produced!".

Argh, it's insane. The very people who watch the content are the ones destroying it's revenue, and there's nothing either side can do to fix it. Chrome locking down on Adblock just means a quick workaround and people more likely to keep using it. But them not dealing with it means people who couldn't give a rats arse just use Adblock anyway.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Well luckily I use Firefox for video watching since chrome can't do surround sound.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

Chrome also decided this week it was a good thing to break The Great Suspender addon. The one that saves my Chrome about 6 GB of RAM use. Now Chrome will itself save like a few percent, the side effect is TGS now reloads all tabs when clicking on one!

So yeah, maybe back to fulltime FF use.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

I'm not experiencing this, so, I'm rather confused. But I also use Magic Actions, and it has an AdBlocker on there, but it's not active. Maybe the changes haven't hit me yet?

 

[RebornKusabi]

I don't run Adblock on my PC personally because these sites need to make money but I do have it on my phone (for security reasons I get into in the next sentence). For my Pc, I use extensions like "NoScript" to protect against what people use Adblock for, period, and that is to prevent browser hijacking and XSS (cross-site scripting). Let's be honest, people wouldn't use Adblock if ads were just ads. They uses them from bad experiences, from having their browser taken over, from having pop-up ads obscure their screens, from having loud "screamers" pop up with the belief they can scare you into winning a new iPad.

This sites pretty good, NOW. It didn't use to be- I used to have to block really intrusive ads constantly here with the NoScript thingy. Now though, the ads are relatively harmless and I don't mind them.

 

[FalloutJack]

It's unethical to annoy people more simply because you don't like that the equivalent of the mute button is being employed. (Point of order: Not running one right now.) People being an ass can pretty much go to hell in my book, regardless of what is going on. Because when you have to go take a dump and leave a pile of shit stinking up the room to make a point, you've lost the argument anyway. Even still, there are two things that are being overlooked. Youtube can't code worth shit (tons of bugs in the system) and other people CAN. Like piracy, it won't be about who's right. It'll be that when you try and force it down everybody's gullet, the people your after take that as "Challenge Accepted", program around it, and you're done. That's what always happens.

 

[IceForce]

Eh, doesn't bother me. I wouldn't use Adblock on YouTube anyway, because I don't care about having to ignore a few seconds' worth of ad in order to generate a little revenue for a YouTuber.

If that was all the ads on Youtube were, you would have a point. But YT ads are worse than just that.

There's usually an ad over to the right of the video, which is almost always animated and distracting. And in addition to that, there are the overlay ads which cover up the entire bottom half of the video. You can close those, but another usually pops up a few minutes later.

If it was just a few seconds of ad at the start of each video and nothing else, that would be fine. But unfortunately YT ads are more intrusive than that.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I use Firefox because Chrome is a Ram guzzler, and stuff like this doesn't make me thing twice about my decision.

This. Also Google can't do jack shit to Ad Block in Europe. At least if I'm not using their browser.

 

[Joccaren]

The best thing to do IMO is what other streaming sites I use do - not the best best thing to do, which would be to find another revenue model, but using the ad-based revenue model - and that is:
1. Have ads, but only ads with no audio. Video is fine, but no audio, or by default the audio is off.
2. Ads are relatively small, and above, to the sides of and below the video, not on top of it.
3. Ads are able to be hidden quickly and easily, should they actually cause problems for a user.
4. Videos are disabled on the site when ad-block is used.

Youtube, offering the superior generic video streaming service at the moment, could get away with something like this. It'd probably lose some people, but at the same time there'd be a lot who wouldn't really be impacted IMO. The key is to keep the ads non intrusive. Rather than locking content behind them, blasting them full volume, and generally impeding your customers use of your service with them, if they are kept there, noticeable, but not interrupting the service, most people won't bother closing them. The option is there for those who do want to. Because videos won't play with adblock running, people will also disable adblock to be able to watch the videos, and won't mind doing so as much because the ads aren't intrusive. Sure, maybe you won't earn as much money per ad, but you'll have a lot more ads being watched. Quantity over quality.

Of course, being a major company, youtube would still get flak for it. Some would refuse to use the service because they're actively acknowledging and further implementing ads, even though the method is favourable to the current one. But you'll keep your revenue, not annoy the customers you do keep, and eventually the others will get over it and move back. If you communicate that you're changing the ad scheme for user comfort, people might even give it a chance and not straight up leave.

Something like this though that actively antagonises your customers? Yeah, Google had better hope that none of its streaming competitors take advantage of this. If they were to make a big move at this point, and offer incentives to streamers to move to their service, whilst promising not to discriminate against customers using ad-block - they'd stand to gain a potentially significant portion of market share. Not enough to overtake Youtube, but enough that Youtube would have to think twice about its practices or else they may eventually do so.