[HN Gopher] SponsorBlock - Skip over sponsorship segments on You...
___________________________________________________________________
SponsorBlock - Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube
Author : bgstry
Score : 89 points
Date : 2021-04-21 07:04 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sponsor.ajay.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (sponsor.ajay.app)
| exikyut wrote:
| What an excellent application of automating everything you can.
| Yay!
|
| This is great. I'm already spamming the right arrow key as soon
| as I realize a video has segued into a "I sold my soul to..."
| bit. I appreciate creators who quietly make such segments a
| consistent length and clearly cue them, so I can accurately guess
| how long to skip :)
|
| As for "but _why???_ ", well, I believe advertising is
| fundamentally broken because it has no feedback loop. It's "throw
| money at the wall and see what sticks."
|
| Analytics and THE COOKIE MONSTER YEETS ALL YOUR PERSONAL
| INFORMATION tries to handwave a feedback loop into existence
| (with measurability, the appearance of substance etc), but that
| doesn't really close the loop either.
|
| IMO, the complexity of modern privacy invasion is solely a
| function of the ridiculously high flotation point advertising
| confers onto everything it touches. I argue that the apparent
| success of that complexity is partly due to the fact that we
| simply cannot reason about it end-to-end, and have to reduce our
| analysis down to simple numerical metrics such as "X is making 1
| billion dollars a year" ("wow that sounds successful"); and
| partly due to the fact that throwing trillions of dollars at a
| problem _will_ cause parts of that problem to move of the way
| regardless of how fundamentally unsolvable that problem is, which
| can give the appearance that the problem is tractable when it is
| not.
|
| Advertising might be the single most attractive thing in the
| world (a meta-correlation I find endlessly amusing) right now,
| but I can't help but see it as infinitely wide and shallow. What
| scares me is that it's growing faster than people's attempts to
| properly probe its depths; this will eventually peter out and--
| oops, someone just popped the balloon.
|
| Perhaps I could acquire sufficient sponsorship to fund a move to
| Mars before that happens...?
|
| In the meantime, because of the lack of a proper feedback loop,
| there's a massive disconnect between the fact that the ad
| industry is growing on one side, while uBlock Origin has
| "10,000,000+" users on the other.
| Raed667 wrote:
| I have been using this for a while, and beyond the sponsorship
| for whatever earbuds-junk or loot-box scam, this also skips those
| annoying intro sections so many Youtubers add just to pad their
| watch-time.
|
| 100% recommend
| csdreamer7 wrote:
| Blocking 3rd party network ads do deprive creators of revenue;
| but using uBlock Origins does have these important benefits:
|
| *Protects you from malicious attacks through 3rd party ad
| networks.
|
| *Keeps your browser fast from trackers.
|
| *Stops intrusive ads that literally take up 30% of your screen
| and move the website around making it difficult to read an
| article.
|
| But sponsored segments built into the video itself? It has none
| of these issues. A lot of creators do what they love, but they
| still need income. If you value the content they create these
| sponsored posts allow them to keep doing that or you can chip in
| a few bucks to pay for an ad-free feed.
|
| Video is a lot of work.
|
| Source: made my own DevOps video course that I had to video edit
| + now part of a video D&D podcast that I thankfully do not have
| to edit or subtitle.
| criddell wrote:
| Would you ever use a DVR to skip television commercials? To me,
| it feels similar.
| chrysoprace wrote:
| If we assume you watch free-to-air TV (not that I do,
| personally), or at least used to. Do you walk away from the TV
| while an ad is playing? Or perhaps you have a DVR setup that
| lets you skip ahead if you're watching on a slight delay.
|
| Is that any different to skipping a sponsorship segment?
| tittenfick wrote:
| Sponsor elements are extremely intrusive. They entirely
| interrupt the video you want to see. Here's my case: I don't
| care how the people make their money. I just refuse to be
| served any of that.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| That's cool, but content creators don't get to decide what ads
| I see or don't see, or what ads I mute or fast forward through.
| damsta wrote:
| > Blocking 3rd party network ads do deprive creators of revenue
|
| That is true and if you are using this extension consider
| disabling "Sponsor" auto skip.
| em-bee wrote:
| i agree with your points except:
|
| _Stops intrusive ads that literally take up 30% of your screen
| and move the website around making it difficult to read an
| article. But sponsored segments built into the video itself? It
| has none of these issues._
|
| any ad disrupts the viewing experience and makes a video
| difficult/annoying to view.
|
| also, the impact of sponsor sections can only be measured based
| on the total views of the video, regardless of whether people
| actually see the ad or not. if i am not interested in the ad,
| then blocking it from view makes absolutely no difference
| (whereas adblock not loading an ad may reduce the exposure
| count) (correction: apparently youtube does show engagement
| over time, so it may be possible to figure out how many people
| skip ads)
| TurplePurtle wrote:
| > the impact of sponsor sections can only be measured based
| on the total views of the video
|
| I don't think that's true at all.
|
| 1. There are video analytics to measure what parts of the
| video were watched.
|
| 2. Even if you generally dislike ads, there is a chance that
| you will see an ad you are interested in that you will check
| out, which will contribute to the ad's effectiveness, and can
| be measured. If you automatically block ads, the
| effectiveness becomes 0 in all cases.
| dang wrote:
| Past related threads:
|
| _Show HN: SponsorBlock - Skip YouTube Sponsorships, Intros,
| Outros and More_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23533858
| - June 2020 (2 comments)
|
| _An open-source browser extension to auto-skip sponsored
| segments on YouTube_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21743196 - Dec 2019 (101
| comments)
|
| _Show HN: SponsorBlock - Skip sponsorship segments of YouTube
| videos_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20778926 - Aug
| 2019 (137 comments)
| londons_explore wrote:
| With a million labelled examples, it ought to be possible to use
| machine learning to detect sponsorships.
|
| A simple version using the auto-generated captions should be
| pretty straightforward - I'm sure a machine learning model can
| figure out how to detect "This video is supported by..."
| kartoshechka wrote:
| Some channels make a lengthy sketch with sponsor "reveal" at
| the very end
| ajayyy wrote:
| Check out https://ai.neuralblock.app/
|
| All the data is public, so anyone can try!
|
| I still think this will remain human-made for the foreseeable
| future, as an AI will probably never be able to make the
| millisecond-precise segments that it currenty has
| antiterra wrote:
| I'd suggest paying for things like https://watchnebula.com/ or a
| creator's ad-free patreon version of videos is maybe a better
| path than trying to game the ad system? Or at least in
| conjunction with it.
| input_sh wrote:
| Happily paying for Nebula as a creator-owned platform. I don't
| feel the slightest shred of guilt for cutting Google as a
| middleman nor for using an ad-block.
|
| Super happy it's a thing and have thoroughly enjoyed some of
| the Nebula originals.
| ajayyy wrote:
| If Nebula existed before I created SponsorBlock, there is a
| high chance that I would have never created it. Though, I am
| happy that I ended up making it though, as there are other
| annoyances to skip like "interaction reminders" and intros.
|
| I think paying for sponsor-free videos is the best way out.
| anticristi wrote:
| How much does Nebula cost? I got to the "enter your card to
| start your free trial" step, and I still have no clue how much
| they charge.
| colejohnson66 wrote:
| On the linked page, under the "start free trial" button,
| there's this:
|
| > 7-day free trial
|
| > then $5 per month or $50 per year
| plushpuffin wrote:
| You can get a much better deal than that. Sign up for
| Curiosity Stream using a promoted bundle link and you get
| Nebula free with it. It's only $12/year this way.
|
| Here's one from the LegalEagle guy:
| https://curiositystream.com/legaleagle/
| ajayyy wrote:
| You are not supposed to buy nebula though the nebula website.
| You are supposed to buy it through a creator referral link in
| a bundle with CuriosityStream.
|
| The price on the website has to be higher as to encourage you
| to use a referral, and to always make you get a "deal" from
| the sponsorship.
| vages wrote:
| I get the technical justification for doing this: You own your
| player, so you should be able to control it in whatever way you
| want. But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid
| for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip (for the
| lack of a better word)?
|
| Pay to watch is, of course, an option, but that leads to
| discrimination based on income - unequally distributed between
| parts of the world and individuals in the same part of the world.
| (Yes, I am aware that the sponsorship system leads the creators
| to cater to the more well-off within each bubble, so it's still a
| bit discriminatory.)
|
| Any ideas or objections?
| [deleted]
| zeta0134 wrote:
| Personally, I just pay content creators as directly as
| possible. If they have a YouTube subscription option available
| I'll do that, but most of them seem to have a Patreon instead.
| If I like someone's content, a couple of bucks a month (or a
| video, or whatever) is more than worth it to me.
| qshaman wrote:
| I have the right to watch or not whatever I want , in the
| same way publishers have the right to add sponsorship content
| on their videos, same applies to ads , if you don't want to
| see ads use an adblocker or skip the sponsorship part with an
| app like this one. If creators don't like it , they should
| find another way of monetizing their work. Shaming people
| into watching ads is disgusting and wrong.
| spockz wrote:
| I think it strongly depends on your legislative region
| whether you are allowed to watch whatever you want on your
| own terms if the content has been published under different
| terms.
|
| When you use YouTube you accept the terms and conditions
| (at least the parts that apply in your jurisdiction) which
| (probably) should state that you are not allowed to
| circumvent ads. If you do so you are in violation. Not sure
| what the consequences of that are though.
| delecti wrote:
| > I have the right to watch or not whatever I want
|
| You don't though. You have the right to _not_ watch
| whatever you want, but if content is published with the
| value proposition that the ads and /or sponsorships are the
| price of admission, then it's hard to argue that you have
| the right to access the content anyway. Some publishers try
| to enforce restrictions like that, mostly ineffectively,
| and it's probably only because of technical challenges that
| more don't.
| [deleted]
| anoncake wrote:
| No. If content is published for 0EUR, it's free. If you
| want money, charge for it. That's the only business model
| that ensures that businesses serve their customers and
| thus the only legitimate one.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Ads and sponsorships are two ways that creators can earn a
| living, but there's additional ones; YT subscriptions, Patreon
| and selling merchandise comes to mind.
|
| Anyway the sponsors won't know (unless I'm mistaken) if a
| viewer skipped that segment, so the creator will get paid
| anyway.
| chii wrote:
| the sponsors will have metrics to measure the conversion rate
| from ad-rolls in their sponsored videos. They will pay
| initially, but over time, less and less as the ads become
| less and less effective.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| By your logic, high-income viewers (such as most of the HN
| users) are currently paying *more* for viewing videos than the
| average viewer since their attention is worth more.
| gsich wrote:
| Does Youtube track if I skip the ad segment? Or better: do the
| uploaders know how many users saw the ad?
| donw wrote:
| I am curious if direct revenue shares are a sustainable model.
|
| E.g., I pay some money -- $10/month. I can choose to pay more.
| A fraction of that is divided evenly amongst all the videos
| I've watched. Creators get a check at the end of the month.
|
| This wouldn't rake in billions of advertiser money. But I think
| it would sustain a very decent business, and be better for
| society in general.
|
| This does need to be voluntary: I need to be able to choose to
| not pay and not watch (or watch with ads, as an alternative).
| And you need to be very transparent about the rules from the
| get-go, as well as about how those rules get changed, and apply
| those rules equally, lest you sacrifice the trust of both your
| viewers and creators.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| That is literally how YouTube Premium works today, but people
| seem to feel entitled to watch without paying any money and
| blocking the ads.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I can't blame people for not giving money and personal
| information (signing up to Premium requires creating a
| Google account and provide _true_ personal information for
| billing purposes) to a hostile company that makes its money
| on stalking users.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| So, basically, ads are more private than subscriptions?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| When it comes from a hostile company, yes.
|
| You can mitigate the privacy impact of ads with
| countermeasures such as ad-blockers or provide fake
| personal information if asked.
|
| You can't easily do so with paid services because you
| need to provide real information for the payment to be
| processed. This requires mutual trust on both sides of
| the transaction.
| anoncake wrote:
| Of course. I'm entitled to block ads and I'm entitled to
| watch things that are offered for free without paying. If
| you want to be paid for something, don't give it away for
| free.
| donw wrote:
| Maybe. But Google has sacrificed trust.
|
| Look at the comments under "YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Gets
| 'Freedom Expression' Award Sponsored by YouTube"[1]. And
| this is on Hacker News, probably one of the more Google-
| friendly communities you'll find online.
|
| This is how you kill a vibrant community of creators.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26880582
| franciscop wrote:
| Will the sponsored bits be skipped if you pay for Youtube
| Premium? Or would you get to both pay AND be shown the
| sponsored segments?
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Great question and we all know the answer.
| cyborgx7 wrote:
| Advertising is bad and I will oppose it in all its forms. What
| other system for financing the content does or doesn't exist is
| irrelevant to the my decision to block as much advertising out
| of my perception as I can.
|
| That said, Patreon seems to be working very well for a lot of
| people making high quality content.
| antiterra wrote:
| That reads an awful lot like: "If a content creator's
| patronage is not in the form I prefer, I deserve to
| circumvent that patronage and consume their content anyway.
| It's irrelevant to me how & if they are compensated."
| tittenfick wrote:
| I fully agree with that statement.
| ddevault wrote:
| Correct.
| intergalplan wrote:
| Yes.
|
| I also buy almost all my books used. Sometimes I flip past
| two-page-spread ads in magazines without looking at them. I
| use ad-blockers. Back when I watched TV with ads, I'd go
| take a whizz during ad breaks. I'd fast-forward past
| trailers in front of VHS movies.
|
| Thug life, then?
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Personally I do pay for YouTube Premium, so videos I watch do
| make money (and do not have ads for me). As for in-video
| sponsor segments, I doubt the actual sponsors get any analytics
| about when they're skipped or not.
| spockz wrote:
| Does YouTube share a part of your premium/fee to the creators
| based on what you watched? That is actually pretty neat.
| ajayyy wrote:
| Creators are paid "a majority" of revenue from YouTube
| premium based on watch time.
| creato wrote:
| That is my assumption and it would be shocking if that were
| not the case. This is the case for ad revenue. Youtube
| premium replaces ad revenue with a fee.
|
| The interesting question I'd like to know the answer to is
| if creators get more money per ad impression or per premium
| subscriber view.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| They surely get analytics on how well a sponsorship works
| since they use dedicated URLs. And if a sponsorship does not
| produce a return on the investment, the sponsor will stop
| giving money to the content creator.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| I would also guess there's some watch time data access
| through the YouTube API, too. Plus tracked links in those
| cards at the corner of a video.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| YouTube does show the creator/uploader engagement
| throughout the video, so you can tell if there are less
| viewers for sponsor segments. My point is that info isn't
| necessarily shared through to the advertiser
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _(and do not have ads for me)_
|
| The sponsor segments are ads. You're getting doubled-dipped.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| And that's why I've been using this sponsor block plugin.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > As for in-video sponsor segments, I doubt the actual
| sponsors get any analytics about when they're skipped or not.
|
| LOLLLLL
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Ultimately there's only one inevitable consequence of this -
| YouTube will move to using Widevine on all YouTube streams to
| stop it happening.
| ajayyy wrote:
| SponsorBlock would work fine with Widevine. In fact, I am
| planning on expanding it to some other sites that have DRM.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| As far as I understand Widewine "protects" (quotes because
| piracy websites are proof of the contrary) the video content
| but wouldn't prevent the player being controlled to skip past
| ads.
| spockz wrote:
| Well technically you could only send the data to be
| buffered up until the sponsored content and only continue
| sending the stream after the content was supposed to be
| finished. Or a bit earlier to ensure smooth playback. If
| the sponsored content is blocked at least the player will
| not be able to continue until the time for the content or
| ad has passed.
|
| I can imagine people on a radio would be fine to have sound
| muted automatically during ads. But how many will wait for
| a video to continue after 30s of nothingness?
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid
| for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip
|
| Sponsors and advertisers should realize that nobody wants to
| hear about the _same_ product on _every single video_ , have
| pages with more ads than content and have their privacy
| compromised - there's a middle ground where both sides can be
| happy, but the problem is that one side is continuously
| overstepping its bounds, causing the other to develop powerful
| countermeasures.
| soganess wrote:
| It is great to see this getting more traction!
|
| To the larger discussion brewing: I honestly don't understand all
| the pushback on here. Why should I have any type of moral
| imperative to support revenue streams I find bad for the
| industry/society/brains? Simply because the creator decided it
| was the right choice? People decide things I disagree with all
| the time, if I have I the power to choose differently, I do. Not
| liking that I reversed a video creator's choice is one thing, but
| the accusations of theft (or general moral failings) are another.
|
| Truthfully, if I had the power to make baked-in adverts
| unprofitable for all Youtube/podcasts/whatever, I would. If
| anything, I feel some obligation to keep ads out of as many
| spaces as I can. There are lots of way to make money, selling
| viewer's eyeballs/ears to the ad industry doesn't have to be the
| default one and shouldn't be protected like some deep creative
| choice.
|
| Of course, I want my favorite creator to make money; people have
| to eat. Alternative sources, such as asking for patroonships or
| donations, I'm amenable to. I even support a couple smaller
| channels I think make special content. Unlike baked-in ads,
| donations are non-compulsory and in my control.
|
| At a more base level, you don't get my eyeballs without my
| computer, internet, etc. I have a stake in viewership and I
| choose to modulate what is in my control. If that modulation
| offends the creator, they do not have to allow it and I will stop
| watching, but that (currently) means taking their content off
| mainstream (vs premium) YouTube and lowering viewership. I
| generally pay for content, but even if I didn't, I can't imagine
| going out of my way to pirate videos of people fixing old C64s
| (something I genuinely enjoy).
|
| Morality is complicated.
| maa5444 wrote:
| I use YouTube Vance on mobile .. fyi
| cyborgx7 wrote:
| And this post got censored off the frontpage of HN.
| staticelf wrote:
| Wow, I immediately downloaded the extension and went to a Linus
| Tech Tips video because they are notorious to have this kind of
| ads and wow it worked perfectly from the get go.
|
| Very impressive extension I have to say!
| Jack000 wrote:
| - the more people that use adblock/sponsor block, the less
| effective ads are in general (lower advertiser ROI for each ad)
|
| - if ROI for ads drop, ad sellers (eg. youtubers) have to reduce
| the price charged to advertisers
|
| - given that ad budgets are more or less constant (companies will
| always need to reach customers) there will simply be more ads,
| since each ad view is now worth less.
|
| - if ads become completely ineffective (eg. reddit) ads will
| simply become disguised as content to get past people's filter
| (aka content marketing, submarine articles etc)
| heavyset_go wrote:
| > _- if ads become completely ineffective (eg. reddit) ads will
| simply become disguised as content to get past people 's filter
| (aka content marketing, submarine articles etc)_
|
| There's no "if" here. This type of advertising exists across
| all platforms and content distribution channels, and has
| existed for centuries. Whether or not ads are blocked does
| nothing to stop it.
| ceres wrote:
| What's a submarine article? Can't find the term on google.
| have_faith wrote:
| http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| FreeFull wrote:
| Are the people who tend to use adblock likely to actually
| engage with the ads with adblock off?
| deadmutex wrote:
| What is your definition of engagement? clicking on it? buying
| a product after clicking on it? or recognizing the brand when
| you are buying a product weeks after seeing the ad?
| stock_toaster wrote:
| Yeah, I always wondered if adblockers actually _improved_ per
| ad engagement, as users of an adblocker are opting themselves
| out of advertisement (thereby removing themselves from
| "inventory"), and seem like they would be less likely overall
| to engage with ads, and thus the adblocker usage is reducing
| the number of non-engaging users.
|
| Sure, overall "inventory" would go down, but I would expect
| for ads that actually make it to users, per-ad engagement/ROI
| (and thus "value") to go up.
|
| ----
|
| Unless ad networks are charging advertisers for ad units that
| aren't actually shown to anybody, which smells an awful lot
| like grift to me!
|
| (effectively charging for hidden ad units to inflate numbers)
| seniorivn wrote:
| I block ads because I don't have ad blindness, when I watch
| ads I focus my attention on it like on normal content
| people who are used to seeing ads don't notice most of ads
| hemloc_io wrote:
| I've always wondered this.
|
| To add a datapoint, I've used adblock forever, but in places
| where I do see ads I've never had the thought to click on
| them, just get past them as quickly as possible.
|
| Other people in my family however have bought things through
| Instagram/Facebook ads, so there are at least SOME people
| buying things through ads. They also have never bothered to
| install adblock.
|
| Conversion rates for ads are super small in my experience
| anyway so driving conversion up should(?) balance the price
| out the price of people using adblock who would not see
| anything, and would not click if they did.
| cyborgx7 wrote:
| I have wanted something like this for podcasts built into
| AntennaPod. Thanks for letting me know about this.
| h4waii wrote:
| Unfortunately it seems AntennaPod won't add it at this point in
| time.
|
| https://github.com/AntennaPod/AntennaPod/issues/4159
|
| https://forum.antennapod.org/t/ability-to-skip-ads-in-the-po...
| franciscop wrote:
| I've been using it for a year and it works amazingly well:
|
| - It blocks all of the popular videos out there I've tried
|
| - For the freshest videos, I find the UI to be super-easy to
| submit a new video; you press a button when the sponsor segment
| starts, another button when it ends, then pick the category and
| click "upload"
| grawprog wrote:
| I'm not going to bash this or anything, I see why people dislike
| the sponsor segments, it's advertising after all, but as someone
| who honestly could not afford to donate to every single channel I
| enjoy watching, I'm glad content creators have a way to make
| money while still providing content essentially for free. I'd
| rather sit and watch a silly ad than just not have access to the
| content because I couldn't afford to donate that month or
| something.
| moistbar wrote:
| There's at least one Youtuber that I enjoy who actually makes
| decent ads. I'd hate to skip over them because they're usually
| funny.
| icanhackit wrote:
| Internet Comment Etiquette with Erik and Internet Historian
| come to mind. Nord VPN Man and Raycon Man ads are the
| highlight of the latter's videos.
| toss1 wrote:
| Similar, I've actually found that they are producing useful
| adverts, but I'm in niche high-performance manufacturing, so
| once it figured that out... Also, I'm happy to give a bit of
| sponsorship funds to creators I like, as long as I can skip the
| obnoxious adverts in <5sec (that's more than I need to sort
| useful from chaff).
| paranoidrobot wrote:
| This is about skipping sponsorship ads that are part of the
| content, inserted by the creator. The "This video was
| sponsored by <VPN Company>. For x% off, go to
| <vpnco.org/whatever> and enter My Channel Name" type things.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Right. And I have no problems with this stuff being stuck
| into content that I pay $0 for, as long as it's not
| obnoxious.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| I understand people don't like ads, but at some point doesn't
| someone have to pay creators for content? This feels just like
| stealing: I don't know how you can justify it: sponsor spots
| don't track you and they don't slow down your computer. Yes they
| are a minor inconvenience but they make the content you watch
| possible.
| kcb wrote:
| Personally I pay for YouTube Premium. So as far as I'm
| concerned covers my support for the creators of the video I
| watch. Ad free is the selling point of YouTube Premium after
| all.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| It's not stealing because the creators will get paid anyway.
| Second, said creators have minimal expenses because YT pays for
| the hosting. Third, ad and sponsorship blocking represents only
| a small fraction of users. It's a fraction to, say, people
| sharing their netflix account.
| jasode wrote:
| _> It's not stealing because the creators will get paid
| anyway. _
|
| This isn't always true. As several sibling comments already
| mentioned, this "native advertising" of embedded sponsor spot
| via the Youtube personality as spokesperson -- is often _"
| paid based on performance"_ which means the affiliate url
| links mentioned in the ad are _measured for clicks resulting
| in new customers_.
|
| I'm not commenting on morals of using a plugin but just
| correcting a misconception about arrangements of payment for
| content creators.
| Raed667 wrote:
| I would have never clicked on an affiliate link. So no harm
| done by that logic.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The problem with sponsor spots is that they're the same every
| single video, there's just not enough diversity on the market.
|
| Is it bad to be skipping a sponsor segment because you've seen
| it dozens of times? Is it bad if you're already a happy user of
| the advertised product? Etc.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| I don't think manual skipping is bad. If you take the time to
| manually skip you probably weren't going to buy the product
| anyways. It's automatic skipping that I have an issue with.
| It doesn't give the creator even a chance to pitch the
| product and their affiliate code (which makes them money)
| londons_explore wrote:
| YouTubers who have both sponsor spots _and_ adverts are the
| ones to be blocking...
| bassdropvroom wrote:
| For these sponsored contents it doesn't really matter though.
| The content creator has already been paid, so whether you watch
| the segment or not, they won't lose or make money.
| dageshi wrote:
| They will if the practice becomes common place. Advertisers
| will know what percentage are just skipping automatically and
| reprice the spots value accordingly.
| rPlayer6554 wrote:
| That's not true. Many get money based on how many clicks an
| affiliate link gets or how much an offer code is used. At the
| minimum this data is used to determine if the company decides
| to continue buying ads from the creator.
| q3k wrote:
| I could see it escalate into an arms race: if the new norm
| for watching videos will be to automatically skip sponsored
| segments by some popular software, the sponsorship offers
| will either dry up, or the resulting sponsorships will be
| designed to be more difficult to skip (eg. by making content
| creators incorporate them throughout the video in many small
| chunks, or as overlaid audio/video, ...).
|
| Similar to what happened to web ads in communities that tend
| to run adblockers: more and more obnoxious advertising
| (intersitial ads, animated ads, etc.), advertising
| incorporated into content (ads-as-content like on Reddit),
| cross-site tracking and retargeting.
|
| I tend to manually skip sponsored segments (especially for
| snake oil like VPN services!), but I'm not sure if writing
| automated software for this is the right thing to do in the
| long term.
| DeusExMachina wrote:
| That's a too simplistic view and not how sponsorships work.
| The sponsor expects a return on the investment. If a
| sponsorship does not generate revenue, that content creator
| will stop getting sponsorships because their audience is
| worthless.
| [deleted]
| disiplus wrote:
| i pay for youtube premium, i don't want ads, if you bake it in
| your video i'm still seeing ads i don't want. And it's ads
| about VPN that are allways the same. I don't want that.
| stephen_g wrote:
| That is the bit that makes me a little uneasy for running
| uBlock Origin with basically no exceptions, but then again, ad
| tech continues to prove to be so abusive again and again that I
| quickly get over it.
|
| I figure that $1 a month on Patreon is worth hundreds of times
| more to a creator than the ad revenue I'm depriving them of,
| and buying any merch probably thousands of times.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Does it make much of a difference if I manually skip it? Those
| sponsor segments are always for terrible products.
| jeltz wrote:
| To me the issue is the constant races to create more and more
| annoying ads. I do not mind ads which are relevant and not too
| annoying, but every time advertisers find a new medium they
| abuse it as much as they can to squeeze every cent out of the
| channel even if it ruins it for everyone.
| eska wrote:
| I watched a video by a successful streamer giving advice to new
| streamers on how to build a career in that industry. He said
| that all these ads and partner programs aren't even worth it,
| unless you're one of the top 1%. The pay is relatively low (the
| platform takes a large cut) and you often have to sign over
| exclusive rights. He said that donations (using external
| services) and most importantly Patreon are the best way to go.
| So I just block all ads and sponsor segments, and donate a few
| bucks here or there.
| qshaman wrote:
| How is this stealing? They can charge for the video if they
| don't want people to see it for free. People have the right to
| not watch ads.
| nfoz wrote:
| > I understand people don't like ads, but at some point doesn't
| someone have to pay creators for content?
|
| No, the role of "content creator paid by impression and
| dependent on people not being able to skip intrusive segments
| of videos that they watch" has no intrinsic right or need to
| exist. There are lots of other ways for civilization to
| develop.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| It's an error to see "ads or creators don't get paid" as the
| only option here.
|
| OECD per-capita spend on all publishing runs about $100/person,
| roughly the same as per-capita ads spend within the same
| countries, itself a tax of sorts.
|
| A natural gateway exists --- not a perfect one, but good enough
| at the level of the ISP provider.
|
| Aggregation, not disintegrations, is the general trend in
| payment systems. Both buyers and sellers benefit from
| predictable flows, income or revenues.
|
| Regionally-pro-rated payments allocate costs according to
| ability to pay, which for information goods is a net social
| benefit.
|
| Rolling an information access fee into fixed line and mobile
| internet service, with an indexing of content accessed and a
| tier-and-bid based reimbursement schedule for publishers, seems
| to me the most viable path forward to something vaguely
| resembling a content tax, without actually going through a
| content tax mechanism. It would ensure universal access to
| readers and the public, compensation for creators, and the
| ability for those actually engaged in the process of creating
| new works to access the materials they need, legally and
| lawfully, answering in part the "why should I pay for
| information I don't use" objection: the inforation you do use
| is itself predicated on information you don't access directly
| yourself. The other answer to this rather tired objection is
| that you live in the world created by information access or
| denial of access, and in general, access to high-quality,
| relevant, useful information should be a net positive.
|
| I'd proposed this years ago (and many others have similar
| suggestions), though noting ISPs as a logical collection
| tollgate is a new realisation.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/1uotb3/a_modes...
| gadders wrote:
| Someone needs to build similar functionality into a podcast
| player.
| [deleted]
| exikyut wrote:
| Go on, ping the developer and let them know.
|
| Earlier is better to expand something like this to $everything,
| like what happened to youtube-dl, precisely because the
| codebase is less mature and it's easier to rip things to bits
| earlier than later.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Integrating this into youtube-dl would be great.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Youtube-dlp, a fork of youtube-dl has intergrations to use
| this database already.
|
| https://github.com/yt-dlp/SponSkrub
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-21 23:02 UTC)