[HN Gopher] SponsorBlock - skip sponsor segments on YouTube
___________________________________________________________________
SponsorBlock - skip sponsor segments on YouTube
Author : anotherhue
Score : 343 points
Date : 2024-08-12 09:10 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (sponsor.ajay.app)
(TXT) w3m dump (sponsor.ajay.app)
| dangus wrote:
| Also extra useful: iSponsorBlockTV. You run it in on a server and
| you can set it up with the YouTube app on all your commercial
| streaming boxes that don't support browser extensions.
|
| https://github.com/dmunozv04/iSponsorBlockTV
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| How does this work, how does it get between the client and
| youtube.com?
| synchrone wrote:
| It uses the tv youtube app remote control over local network
| to see if it plays a video, and skips at the right time.
| ilrwbwrkhv wrote:
| Ha. What a fantastic piece of hack. Absolutely brilliant.
| Love it.
| post_break wrote:
| Oh my god I could kiss you. It works on AppleTV.
| nerdjon wrote:
| I kinda feel like this is taking things too far. I mean I guess
| ultimately as long as this is not used by many people there won't
| really be any impact.
|
| But if we are going to complain about how ads are tracking us and
| other potential issues, why go so far as to block something that
| isn't? Unless blocking ads has nothing to do with privacy and is
| just an annoyance with ads...
|
| I am all for blocking privacy invading ads since they lost any
| trust, but I question why you would really do this if you want a
| free web to continue to exist.
| dialup_sounds wrote:
| With sponsorships I think people are just annoyed by them being
| repetitive. There are maybe ten companies that seem to sponsor
| every YouTube channel and podcast, and there's only so many
| times you can get pitched the same wallet or VPN before you
| develop the instinct to skip ahead.
|
| But before we skip ahead, let me tell you about this comment's
| sponsor, Squarespace. From websites and online stores to
| marketing tools and analytics, Squarespace is the all-in-one
| platform to build a beautiful online presence and run your
| business. Use code "eyeroll" to get 10% off your first order.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Oh god lol don't give companies who buy ad space any ideas!
| Nextgrid wrote:
| If I'm going to skip it manually anyway, may as well let the
| machine do it. The whole point of computers is to automate
| busywork.
|
| No sales will be lost either way as I'm already a customer of
| the website builder and am absolutely not in the market for a
| VPN and never will be.
| vikramkr wrote:
| It's because it's an annoyance with ads and even if people want
| a free web to exist something something prisoners dilemma.
|
| Also these ads are in videos even if you're e.g. paying for
| YouTube premium so it's not just the free web.
| ulyssys wrote:
| It's not necessarily an either-or situation. It can be privacy,
| annoyance, and a general lack of effectiveness.
|
| Advertising isn't just the art of selling a product, it's the
| art of getting past our normal social defense that someone is
| trying to take our money, our attention, and our time.
| Advertising is necessarily adversarial, and everyone's
| tolerance for it is going to be unique depending on how heavily
| they rely on free resources, but it is a necessary unpleasantry
| at its best.
|
| If I could even recall the exact number of times an
| advertisement of any type appealed to me in the last 20 or more
| years, it would amount to less than the fingers on my hand. I
| used to welcome all of Google's advertising tracking and
| relevance-seeking as the best version of advertising out there,
| but even that resulted in unimpressive and less than meaningful
| ads. If Google can't advertise something useful to me, then I
| have zero qualms about walking by, palm facing them in refusal.
|
| Because of these product failures, and because it is unwise to
| trust a big company with all of your personal data, I rarely
| desired to be advertised to at all.
|
| Individual content creators have the opportunity to give me a
| chance with something unique that they know that their viewers
| would be interested in because they (hopefully) relate to their
| audience much more than a faceless corporation, and can present
| a product in its best, most relevant light.
|
| But if that content creator is trying to sell me a Scandinavian
| VPN service or a game of legendary shadows, you can bet I have
| zero interest.
|
| All this may change as GenAI-driven methods may key in on
| relevant interests based on what I wish to share about myself.
| I'm hoping that Apple's Intelligence systems will end up
| preserving privacy as well as driving a more effective ad
| model.
| elashri wrote:
| You still get these ads even when you go and buy YouTube
| premium that should be actually your way to an experience free
| of ads.
| chatmasta wrote:
| I wasn't gonna buy the thing being advertised to me, so why not
| save us all some bandwidth and time? Or if you think that I was
| gonna buy it but I didn't know it, then you're admitting you
| want to manipulate me, which only strengthens my argument for
| my right to block it.
|
| Advertising is creating consensus without consent. It's
| information warefare, propaganda, psychological manipulation...
| whatever you want to call it, in any other context the
| immorality is clear. If a guy buys a woman a vodka soda at a
| hotel bar, can she accept it and return to her table, or does
| she need to listen to his offer to come up to his room before
| she can drink it?
| zamadatix wrote:
| Even without such a hardline stance on advertising: there is
| simply no other way to avoid sponsored YouTube segments
| despite being a YouTube Premium subscriber and sponsoring a
| channel directly. Maybe not everyone agrees with the former
| but I've not seen a single debate against the latter.
| briandear wrote:
| Somebody is buying though. Advertising absolutely works.
| juliangmp wrote:
| I get where you're coming from but consider this: using an
| adblocker like ublock isn't only about digital privacy. Many
| people, myself included, dislike being advertised to in
| general.
|
| Especially in the real world I think ads are a blight, and so
| do the Swiss [1].
|
| I do use sponsor block myself, though I have it disabled on
| certain channels because they actually show decent sponsors,
| like things that their audience might actually be interested in
| and they're not complete lies. But there is absolutely no
| positive impact on my life from seeing the 624th ad for a VPN
| to "protect myself online".
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41075766
| pino82 wrote:
| Yes, it has nothing to do with privacy. The opposite is maybe
| true in that case (i.e. google can probably see my usage of
| sponsorblock in the access logs, which makes it simpler for
| them to identify me).
|
| But I do use it. I don't watch video clips very often. When I
| did, most of the times it was disappointing waste of time.
| Conference talks are the most obvious exception that come to my
| mind, and they don't interrupt their talk with sponsor ads.
|
| Once something is in YT (or any other big tech silo), I'm
| completely outside of charity or goodwill mode. It's basically
| like sth broadcasted by a random tv station for me. I maybe
| consume it, but I'll not start thinking how I can support them.
| The 'free web' that I'd explicitly try to support does not
| happen in big tech's walled gardens.
|
| Btw: Are there any 'good' sponsors in YT? I suspect, a company
| that sponsors YT channels is by definition suspect. Just
| because the target audience doesn't really ask for more. They
| spend hours each day in a loop of mostly pointless 'subscribe,
| like me, follow me, comment below, $SPONSOR, ...' and always
| the big show without any actual substance in the end.
|
| Sure, there are always a handful of exceptions...
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I first started to block ads for privacy and to prevent those
| that takes over the screen, but once you have blocked ads once,
| you start to enjoy the actual peace and ability to concentrate.
|
| Plus ads are for shitty products, since good products end up
| selling through recommendations and reviews.
| briandear wrote:
| How do those recommenders find out about a product in the
| first place? Advertising and PR is how that happens unless a
| person happens to be friends with the owner.
|
| Advertising facilitates discovery, reviews and
| recommendations facilitate sustained growth.
| lrvick wrote:
| It is not a free web if the creators I watch are being paid off
| to promote and never criticize corpos in their industry.
|
| Block all ads of all kinds. I do not want to watch advertizer
| os sponsor friendly creators. I want people talking to me
| honestly like they might off camera.
|
| We must switch to micro transaction pay-per-view model like
| LBRY to eliminate all ads and ensure creators get paid better
| without having their integrity compromised by corpo sponsors.
| 0dayz wrote:
| >I want people talking to me honestly like they might off
| camera
|
| The you'll have to wish for a while since no one on YouTube
| is "as honest as if the camera is off".
| rchaud wrote:
| Microtransactions won't fix this, for the same reason that
| paid cable channels and newspapers still show ads. The
| temptation to double-dip is too great.
| throw10920 wrote:
| This is a terrible argument.
|
| First, it can be unproductively applied to any monetization
| system - you can _always_ say that the temptation will
| still exist to double-dip.
|
| Second, because it's ignoring the fact that if you want to
| get rid of ads, you have to replace them with something
| else.
|
| And third, it's only partially true - microtransactions
| _will_ make the ad problem better, because ad display by
| small creators is partially driven by the need to make a
| living. Once that living is met, the pressure to _also_
| display ads gets significantly reduced.
| rchaud wrote:
| > First, it can be unproductively applied to any
| monetization system - you can always say that the
| temptation will still exist to double-dip.
|
| That's capitalism. The Uber app was a straightforward
| experience, until they started loading it up with ads and
| tip screens. Paid Hulu and Netflix tiers have ads too,
| when previously they didn't.
|
| If that's a "terrible argument", there should be numerous
| counterexamples of companies doing the opposite.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| YouTube (and Google's advertising platform as a whole)
| literally advertises investment scams, allows deepfakes, and
| has been known to have ads that link to fake bank websites and
| contain malware.
|
| There is no advertising on the internet that doesn't have
| potential issues because at least the dominant advertising
| platforms (Google, Meta) work at a scale that cannot
| satisfactorily filter for the kind of things I've mentioned
| above.
|
| Do you want your kids or parents or grandparents exposed to
| that kind of advertising?
|
| Also, the "free web" is a thing that already existed.
| Advertising was an add-on, not a core component.
| jocaal wrote:
| The creator of this extension also makes DeArrow [1]. It replaces
| the clickbait thumbnails and titles with less annoying ones. I
| highly recommend it.
|
| [1] https://dearrow.ajay.app/
| rendaw wrote:
| Whoah, how does it do that? It looks like magic, so does it
| handle the clickbait use of "this" as well ("this game", "this
| recipe", "this film")?
|
| I'm using one that just decapitalizes and uses a random frame
| thumbnail from the middle, which is okay.
| gabegm wrote:
| According to the extension homepage:
|
| "DeArrow is an open source browser extension for
| crowdsourcing better titles and thumbnails on YouTube. The
| goal is to make titles accurate and reduce sensationalism. No
| more arrows, ridiculous faces, and no more clickbait.
|
| ...
|
| There are currently 64,634 users who have submitted 230,432
| titles and 107,027 thumbnails."
| zamadatix wrote:
| Oh my god, what a difference it made. Thanks for sharing this.
| I do wish this could have just been a feature tacked on the
| Sponsor Block extension, especially considering it has features
| which rely on that data, but otherwise it's perfect.
|
| For those that haven't watched the demo video: for videos that
| don't have community thumbnails or titles it has options
| allowing it to automatically pick a random (non-sponsor
| segment) screenshot and automatically clean up the title
| (remove emoji, fix capitalization).
| xdennis wrote:
| I used to use it, unfortunately it doesn't work so well with
| titles. It lowercases unknown acronyms and initcaps all words
| even in languages which Do Not Use This Capitalization For
| Titles.
| noone_youknow wrote:
| As a YouTuber, I'm conflicted about this. My main channel (non-
| tech) is small, but is monetised, and YouTube see fit to throw me
| a _very_ variable amount of money every month. CPMs are down
| right now so revenue has tanked along with it, it'll pick back up
| at some point, but the variability is itself the pain point. My
| videos are relatively expensive and time consuming to make, but
| people seem to find them useful, and even enjoyable. The
| occasional (relevant) sponsor read or similar has been a huge
| help in providing some stability in the past, and I know for many
| channels it's the main source of income since YPP revenue share
| can be so volatile.
|
| I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those
| sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising, and
| it'll be another nail in the coffin for creators. Sure many of us
| also do patreon etc but that's never really sat right with me
| personally (and see also the post on HN just today about Apple
| coming for a revenue split there for another creator-hostile
| storm brewing).
|
| On the other hand, I totally get the hatred of "the usual
| suspect" sponsors (VPNs, low-quality learning platforms etc) that
| get done to death because of their aggressive sponsor budgets and
| not-unreasonable deals. Those get shoehorned into a ton of videos
| and it's a shame, but a blunt instrument like this is likely to
| kill off sponsorships as a whole, not just those bad ones.
| efilife wrote:
| Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users that
| pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your videos.
| Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel memberships
| are an option, they display next to the "subscribe button".
| noone_youknow wrote:
| > Don't do your videos for money.
|
| This is of course a valid suggestion, and there are many,
| many creators that do this. However I think the world would
| be a poorer place if we lost all the creators that do need to
| make _some_ money for their channels to survive, which IMHO
| is the natural endgame if we remove or block all routes to
| passive monetisation.
|
| I do get the issue with premium, as a premium subscriber
| myself I too find it annoying to be interrupted by yet
| another 30-second (or increasingly, more) read for some shady
| VPN or whatever.
|
| Channel memberships, like patreon etc., are an option, but
| have a vanishingly small rate of uptake, and people expect
| some sort of value-add in return (early access to videos, a
| discord, and so on). Without other routes to revenue this
| just devalues the content itself, which I feel may be part of
| the problem here - we no longer value attach value to quality
| content. Rick Beato made a great video on the effects of this
| (in the music industry) recently, and it's not great - but it
| does feel like all media is going a similar way.
| Sakos wrote:
| I often pay for Patreon to get uncensored videos. Youtube
| by itself already devalues videos in various ways and
| avenues like Patreon let creators provide what they
| actually want to provide, not just what YouTube allows them
| to.
| noone_youknow wrote:
| That's great, I'm glad that you're supporting creators
| directly and getting value from it too. But unfortunately
| you're in the minority in my experience, for every person
| who does this, there are hundreds who wouldn't even
| consider it.
|
| For creators making certain kinds of content the
| "uncensored" and "non-ad-friendly" topics are a great
| argument for direct sponsorship etc, I definitely agree.
| Sakos wrote:
| If by "certain" you mean anybody covering anything from
| movies to songs to games to whatever else, yes. I mean
| "those" creators. It's extremely easy to fall afoul of
| YouTube's Draconian censorship. I'm not talking about sex
| games. I'm talking about YouTube demonetizing anything
| they want for arbitrary reasons.
|
| I feel you're not recognising the issue and what Patreon
| solves, and why relying on YouTube for revenue is simply
| not an option for anybody.
| noone_youknow wrote:
| Well, what I had in mind by "certain" is probably really
| "not me". I'm fully aware how easy it is to fall foul of
| the ad-friendly guidelines, and have had more than one
| video demonetised for "reasons" myself. I'm also very
| aware that tying one's entire revenue to a single
| platform isn't a good strategy in _any_ business, it's
| not limited to YouTube (but I can see an argument for it
| being worse there specifically).
|
| I really do recognise the issue, being in it myself. I do
| have patreon (and others) for other projects and it's
| another revenue stream, which is great. But for my
| YouTube main channel I believe the content itself has
| value, and having to pour time and resources into
| building a value-add package devalues it - both in the
| immediate (since I would now have less time to devote to
| content creation) and longer term (since it makes it
| essentially a leader for my value add packages).
|
| (Some larger creators I know do manage to carve out some
| revenue on patreon etc without any "perk package" but I
| think for that to work it becomes even more of a numbers
| game, and won't help small creators just getting started.
| I'm also putting aside the recent announcements ref. The
| App Store etc since they're not directly relevant here).
| Sakos wrote:
| If you aren't able to get enough funding through Patreon,
| then it's simply because you haven't found a large enough
| or the right audience yet. It has nothing to do with
| value add. Not every viewer is going to subscribe to you
| on Patreon. Even the biggest channels I have subbed on
| Patreon have a fraction of their viewers on Patreon of
| what they have on YouTube, yet it's more than sufficient
| to fund an entire well-off lifestyle based on it.
| lrvick wrote:
| You can also time delay any content .
|
| Supporters get access via paid LBRY views or access to
| unlisted or privately hosted videos right away, and they
| are published a month later for free on public platforms.
| kelnos wrote:
| I just don't personally find that sort of thing
| compelling. For the kinds of videos I watch, it doesn't
| matter to me if I watch it today or a month from now.
|
| I think paywalled bonus content has the most value. A
| creator has a lot of control in that sense: if they are
| not making enough money, they can shift more of their
| free content behind the paywall. Certainly there's a
| point where viewers will get mad and leave, and/or what's
| available for free won't be enough to attract new paid
| subscribers, but there's still wiggle room.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| > Don't do your videos for money. You are interrupting users
| that pay for YouTube premium with ads in the middle of your
| videos. Set up a way to donate to you on YouTube, channel
| memberships are an option, they display next to the
| "subscribe button".
|
| You shouldn't work for money either. Just do it for free.
| krapp wrote:
| We live in a capitalist society, and most people are forced
| to work to make ends meet. Being able to choose to put in
| what amounts to full time hours on a passion project isn't
| a privilege most people have.
|
| You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you insist
| that artists should entertain you for free?
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| > You, presumably, wouldn't work for free, why do you
| insist that artists should entertain you for free?
|
| You didn't understand my post. I don't insist that
| artists entertain for free. I was responding to the
| parent who said "don't make videos for money". I am in
| fact a full-time content creator.
| krapp wrote:
| My mistake then.
|
| I encounter that attitude a lot here so I guess I jumped
| to conclusions.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Yeah, I get that!
| efilife wrote:
| YouTube isn't work and I doubt this person creates videos
| for a living. I assume this is just extra money this person
| wants, not _needs_. Many years ago YouTube was about
| hobbyists, and nobody complained. I 'm sick of the attitude
| to monetize everything. I listed a few non-intrusive
| options, just don't be hostile to your viewers shoving them
| sponsored crap in the middle of videos
| dageshi wrote:
| For a lot of people, it is work and the quality is vastly
| better for it. Youtube in the past wasn't a replacement
| for tv, now given the quality many creators put into
| their work, it is.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _YouTube isn 't work_
|
| In the beginning of YouTube, true. But nowadays YouTube
| _is_ work for a lot of people. It 's their primary source
| of income, even. It's pointless to say, "well, that's not
| how it should be". It is, and that's the reality of the
| situation.
|
| And, frankly, the production value of a lot of stuff on
| YouTube is _amazing_. That doesn 't come for free, in the
| form of recording equipment, set design and purchasing,
| and just plain old time to write scripts and do post-
| production work. There's no reason that stuff at that
| middle quality level (between random guy with a handheld
| smartphone and professional studio production) shouldn't
| exist. I think it's amazing that people can make such
| high quality content, without having to get past e.g. a
| hollywood studio gatekeeper.
|
| In the past, TV was traditionally paid for through
| advertising and syndication, and movies through ticket
| sales, and VHS/DVD/Bluray sales. Nowadays there are so
| many more ways for people to distribute their creations,
| and more ways for viewers to compensate them for those
| creations.
|
| The thing that sucks is that we are still so stuck on
| this ad-supported model, not that people want to put
| enough work into their creations that it needs to be a
| paid full-time job.
| erklik wrote:
| > blunt instrument like this is likely to kill off sponsorships
| as a whole
|
| That's the dream. Ads are a poison and a blight.
|
| Removing them is something many users, including me welcome. If
| one wants money for their videos, they're welcome to actually
| allow getting payments i.e. patreon, the "Youtube
| sponsorship"-thing.
| noone_youknow wrote:
| Sure, I totally get that. I'm no fan of being advertised to
| myself and as a premium subscriber I do find sponsor segments
| - especially poorly-places ones - just as annoying as
| everyone else when watching YouTube - which is why I said I
| was conflicted in my earlier comment.
|
| However as I mentioned in another reply in this thread,
| removing routes to monetisation and devaluing content in
| general (by making it be effectively a loss-leader for value-
| add sponsorships or memberships) will only have the effect of
| making YouTube non-viable for many, and especially those who
| necessarily have higher production values to make better
| quality (I'm thinking more thoroughly-researched, more
| interesting, that sort of thing) content.
| lrvick wrote:
| Making YouTube non-viable is the entire point. Google
| should not be the gatekeeper for the world's content, or
| get to decide who wins and loses in a rat race trying to
| keep up with algorithms built to keep users addicted to low
| quality advertizer friendly content.
|
| The end game of ad blocking tech is to make ads a non
| viable source of revenue so creators will move on to
| ethical platforms like LBRY or peertube where creators are
| in charge again and users can pay them directly with no
| corrupt middle-men .
|
| I would suggest being an early adopter on alternative
| platforms building a direct relationship with a more
| independent donation-motivated audience before everyone
| else does.
| eropple wrote:
| These are platforms with worse availability and worse
| affordances, ranging to nonfunctional once you're on a
| mobile device. Adblocking technology isn't going to make
| them better. Making them better is going to make them
| better, but the unit economics remain not in their favor.
|
| A more likely future is _less video_ rather than _people
| move to PeerTube and shake an upturned hat for
| donations_. Which doesn 't bother me much, but is likely
| to invoke the FAFO gator on a lot of folks.
| pino82 wrote:
| > A more likely future is less video
|
| You mean I could get a f...ing text again about things,
| which I could just read at my own speed, skip back and
| forth by just moving my eyes, use the search function,
| skip pieces of it, etc etc, in just two minutes instead
| of ten minutes watching a video clip for the most trivial
| statements?
|
| What a baaad world that would be...
| pino82 wrote:
| Exactly that. But surprisingly, although I'd consider it
| as a trivial insight, we're living in a world that just
| doesn't want to understand that.
|
| And while YT is a lot about casual nonsense, there are
| other big tech walled gardens, where content fights
| against some corporate-controlled algorithms, but the
| content is our entire public discourse nowadays. :( And
| people still do not want to understand what a terribly
| bad idea that is...
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Aren't you, as a YouTuber, in the same position as many
| creators that do the same on other mediums? There are
| people out there who write amazing blog posts but now the
| traditional advertising world is basically dead and people
| have to figure out other ways to make it work.
|
| Or they have to accept that what they do is not a full time
| job but rather a hobby and they need to find other ways to
| earn a living.
|
| Writing is no longer viable for many. I don't see why
| YouTube should be this special case.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Assuming when you say thoroughly researched, you're looking
| for high quality educational information, the highest
| quality videos are generally from a camera pointed at a
| blackboard/whiteboard recording a lecture that an expert
| was already going to give. Not a lot of production value
| necessary.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I'm not trying to be offensive or hostile but, as much as I
| value the higher-quality content on youtube, if youtube
| went back to being just a place people posted videos of
| themselves doing stuff instead of what effectively amounts
| to studios making youtube content, I'd consider that a win.
|
| Again, not that your content isn't likely appreciated by
| your audience and valuable. I just miss the days of youtube
| just being a fun video platform instead of another TV
| channel.
| sdoering wrote:
| D'accord
| lifthrasiir wrote:
| It greatly depends on the audience, but for many cases,
| unfortunately, it's more likely the case that _you_ are
| dreaming.
|
| Typical income flows for streamers include:
|
| 1. Passive advertising from video and stream platforms (which
| many adblockers do block)
|
| 2. Active advertising via sponsorships (which SponsorBlock
| wants to block)
|
| 3. Live stream donations
|
| 4. Video/stream-independent donations, most usually via
| Patreon
|
| 5. Paid "premium" or behind-the-scene programmes (partly
| overlaps with video/stream-independent donations due to their
| obvious weaknesses)
|
| 6. Merchandises
|
| And not all streamers can do them at once. Live stream
| donations only work for some genres of streaming and it is
| easy to stress audiences. Usual donations may or may not
| work, but it is usually thought to be weaker than live stream
| donations due to its passiveness (unless you come up with
| very different perks, but then your income is completely
| independent from streaming).
|
| Many high-profile channels rely greatly on merchandises
| because it does have significant margins if you can keep
| launching enough of them, but they are especially risky when
| your channel and/or stream is not large enough. So smaller
| channels have traditionally relied on passive advertising,
| but its flaws are well known and discussed to the death by
| now. (If you need a list though, higher processing fees,
| prevalence of adblocking, generally too low income to be
| sustainable, extreme platform dependence etc.) This leaves
| active advertising as a compelling option for smaller
| streamers, at least for now.
|
| While I do loathe most kind of advertising, active
| advertising like this is something I can (barely) tolerate
| because it is meant to be performed by streamers themselves,
| unlike passive advertising which rarely relates to the
| streamer or content itself. And I'm afraid that there doesn't
| seem to be any other viable option remaining. I can always
| skip an ad portion of a video if I do find it annoying
| anyway.
| 0dayz wrote:
| And I'll agree with you the day we all decide to pay a
| monthly fee that is big enough to support various websites
| and creators.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| Why? As a HN-er/content creator, I don't see why it would
| be taken for granted that people need to be paid for their
| hobbies. In fact many people post online for enjoyment.
| ESTheComposer wrote:
| If you're a HN-er you should know the culture of HN is
| very old school and fringe mentality. E.g:
|
| - Flip phones are celebrated in some threads because
| people don't want smart phones (extreme minority in real
| life)
|
| - Disabling JS and pushing sites to go back to just raw
| HTML CSS (with some even not understanding why we need
| JS, extreme minority irl. IRL site owners care about
| attracting customers and the things they want to do can't
| be done with raw HTML CSS much of the time)
|
| - Kagi taking off. IRL most people still do and will
| continue to Google
|
| - People acting like if ads were disabled forever the
| population would totally pay for things they like (IRL
| people don't, there's a reason piracy is big. People want
| the things they want for the cheapest cost possible)
|
| HN is a very specific type of tech-centric bubble
| labcomputer wrote:
| I'm sort of amazed this has to be explicitly stated:
|
| Because most YouTube creators (even the hobbyists) are at
| least partially motivated by money, and if you take away
| all the money they will likely make less content or stop
| altogether. I understand that it's fun to get things for
| free, but that's usually not sustainable.
| sdoering wrote:
| If they want to make money, they are totally free to have
| a website hosting their content behind a paywall.
|
| Than I can decide if their content is worth money to me
| (let me tell you: in 999 out of 1000 "creators" it
| isn't).
|
| But I already pay for a few select content creators. And
| happily shell out more than I would pay YT for an adfree
| experience.
| ndriscoll wrote:
| The point is that's fine, and it is perfectly sustainable
| for people to do things they enjoy for free. It'd perhaps
| not be sustainable for someone to play video games as a
| full-time job, but maybe that's okay (or even desirable
| from a societal resource allocation standpoint)?
| xena wrote:
| Simply make rent, housing, and food free. Then people
| need not make money for the majority of needs.
| kelnos wrote:
| I think that's fine, though. Maybe we should have
| different platforms. Maybe we have a platform just for
| people who post stuff out of love for their craft, and
| don't expect any sort of compensation. And then we have a
| platform for people who want to monetize, and the
| platform itself has a subscription fee that gets
| distributed to creators based on views, or... something.
| Anything, really.
|
| Maybe this could all be YouTube, but creators decide on a
| per-video basis whether they're uploading publicly or
| only to paid viewers. I dunno, there are so many other
| models.
|
| The current situation with YouTubers asking people to
| subscribe to their Patreon or whatever is so weird, since
| often they have to distribute patron perks outside of
| YouTube, or via unlisted links, or whatever. I assume
| Google hasn't built in paid subscriptions option for fear
| of anti-trust regulation, but an integrated solution like
| that would likely be better for both creators and
| viewers.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I wouldn't pay real money other than my YT Premium, so I'm
| fine with sponsor reads. I'm not alone.
| zamadatix wrote:
| As I understand it YouTube Premium viewers result in
| significantly more revenue than ad based viewers do [1] but
| represent a tiny fraction of viewers [2] and can't be
| targeted separately. I.e. if most people were willing to
| pay in just one way, even if that were just YouTube
| Premium, then there wouldn't be such a strong incentive for
| channels to rely on sponsored segments but most people
| prefer not paying anything and dealing with ads and/or
| sponsored segments instead leaving those that do a bit
| stuck with the latter.
|
| [1] Just one example https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubegaming
| /comments/p1qmgu/conte... [2]
| https://backlinko.com/youtube-users
| CuriousSkeptic wrote:
| I would buy premium in a heartbeat if it actually
| filtered out all ads and sponsored content. Not just the
| segment, the entire video should be cut if its creation
| was influenced by "impressions" or what ever filler
| content is measured in.
|
| The current deal gives me no value, it just distributes
| more money to promote quantity crap over quality.
|
| Someone needs to figures out how to take my money and
| distribute them to people working on actually valuable
| stuff.
| Refusing23 wrote:
| I will either block/skip ads or not use youtube
|
| instead of having a "sponsored" segment where you talk about
| some product (basically an ad) you could just make the whole
| video about that product, and thus sponsorblock wouldnt really
| be used - i mean, sorta like product reviews
| noone_youknow wrote:
| Well, that's your call, of course. And when it comes to
| regular YT ads I don't really blame you, "the algorithm" and
| the way monetisation works encourages us to set up aggressive
| mid-roll placements etc that must be incredibly annoying if
| one doesn't pay for premium.
|
| One of the nice things about sponsor segments is that they
| don't involve YouTube, so the creator gets more benefit from
| the deal, but of course done badly (and I assume this must be
| the case with many of the generic irrelevant VPN ads for
| example) they will harm retention and thus limit reach.
|
| Your "whole video" suggestion is really "advertise smarter"
| IMO, which I completely agree with. Personally I've never
| done a "reading a 30-second script about how great product X
| is" type segment, but I have done videos where I try out
| "product X" in some way that's relevant to my audience. It's
| more product placement than direct advertising, but I guess
| even that is unpalatable to some.
| lrvick wrote:
| Even sponsor segments mean you are being biased by third
| parties, which makes it harder for you to criticize them
| later if they are no longer something you would honestly
| endorse.
|
| I did not click the video to waste time hearing about corpo
| sponsors you have been paid to shill. At most I will listen
| to information of non profit causes to donate to.
|
| Use the sponsor segments to tell users how to donate to
| you. Sponsor block categorizes these differently and leaves
| them by default.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Just a heads up, the VPN ads are annoying sure but I think
| a lot of people would agree the RAID SHADOW LEGENDS ads are
| the worst lol
| Always42 wrote:
| "I will either block/skip ads or not use youtube"
|
| I agree. But to add, if youtube went all out and made ad
| blocking sufficiently difficult I probably would pay for it.
|
| I fixed my dryer some time back. Watching a youtube video on
| how to probably saved me multiple hours then figuring it out
| all on my own. I use it to fix cars.
| mmmlinux wrote:
| Those are called "fully integrated ads" and most of the time
| you don't see them because creators want more money for the
| whole video being an ad vs 30second of the 10 minute video.
| They also tend to involve a lot more back and forth with the
| creator and the sponsor about what is "allowed" in the video.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| Let me state upfront I do understand the desire to make money
| from a channel, and much of the YT content I enjoy would not
| exist if that was not possible. But allow me to make a few
| hopefully nuanced remarks.
|
| First of all it is not _just_ the VPNs. Briliants, RSLs etc.
| that annoy, it is _all_ sponsor reads. Even those channels that
| try to be creative with it, there 's only so many times you can
| be funny about it, and then it turns into just another piece of
| formulaic slop.
|
| But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it breaks
| the youtube premium deal. I pay YT for an ad free experience.
| YT pays you more for my view than a 'free' watcher, and then
| you shove in ads anyway. Now I do get your argument that "it's
| not enough", but that does not change my end of the deal.
|
| Idealy ad reads would be autoskipped for premium subscribers.
| If that meant premium being a bit more expensive, I would be
| fine with that personally.
| noone_youknow wrote:
| > But another reason why sponsor reads annoy me is that it
| breaks the youtube premium deal.
|
| I totally get that, and I feel the same way when I see yet
| another read as a viewer and premium subscriber.
|
| I don't really have an answer (and if I did, I'd be doing it
| already), but I will say that my (subjective, based on my ad
| placement strategy and viewer profile) experience is that
| premium views are worth less than non-premium - although
| YouTube cleverly don't actually give me enough data to _know_
| that as a fact (and it would go against their stated
| position, which I guess they would never do).
| ziml77 wrote:
| Linus Sebastian has said the exact opposite of that
| whenever he's discussed the breakdown of where the money
| that Linus Media Group makes comes from. Premium views are
| worth more than free views.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Just a guess: maybe it depends by which vertical they're
| in? Not all channels earn the same so many be there are
| cases where non-premium users are more valuable than
| premium ones?
| kimixa wrote:
| A game streamer I sometimes watch also said something
| similar - that "youtube premium" views are tracked
| separately and worth significant multiples per view
| compared to those that get ads.
|
| They also said it isn't variable in the same way for what
| ads can get assigned to your content, or for "limited
| monetization" content (which apparently pretty much sets
| the ad income to zero).
| PeterStuer wrote:
| If I remember correctly the numbers given were 6x more
| direct payouts for a premium view vs. a free view.
| mkaic wrote:
| I wish YouTube Premium (and honestly, Spotify too!) had a
| feature where I could voluntarily commit X additional dollars
| per month to be _directly_ distributed to the creators I
| watch _according to their share of my total watchtime_ , with
| some kind of manual opt-out button for individual
| videos/creators that I explicitly do _not_ want to support. I
| am already a member of several Patreons but wish I could cast
| a bit of a wider support net for the people I watch _enough-
| to-want-to-support-them-but-not-enough-to-join-their-Patreon_
| , yknow?
| kimixa wrote:
| Is that not just youtube "memberships" though? The creator
| can choose the cost and have multiple "tiers" - I don't
| think there's anything stopping them having a $1 "tip jar"
| tier.
|
| Sure, it's not _quite_ the same, but at some point of
| similar-enough the number of people who actually use each
| feature becomes vanishingly small and /or the cost of
| managing the extra option outpaces the income, and it's
| just not worth it.
| jaderobbins1 wrote:
| Even then I've heard of some channels uploading ad-free
| versions of their videos for certain membership tiers.
| vstollen wrote:
| This somewhat reminds me on the discussions around the Web
| Monetization API [1] a few years ago.
|
| I still wish for a service that gives me access to _all_
| paywalled sites or a way to sending all websites I visit a
| little money in exchange for them not serving ads.
|
| [1]: https://webmonetization.org/
| joshvm wrote:
| I've mentioned this in the past but I mind sponsorship a lot
| less when it's highly relevant for the channel. For example a
| lot of engineering channels are sponsored by JLPCB who
| provided machining services or PCBs for the project video -
| that makes sense.
|
| Coffee influencers selling me NordVPN on a video about
| grinder particle size distribution does not.
| lrvick wrote:
| I actively support channels and causes by purchasing merch,
| donating, etc. That said, I refuse to waste a second of my life
| watching ads of any kind or supporting adtech. Adtech is what
| has enshittified the entire internet and we must burn it with
| fire at all costs.
|
| I use FreeTube to block all ads and sponsor segments and I
| teach everyone I know to do the same.
|
| The ad model results in creators being restricted in order to
| be advertised friendly, and encourages mass spying, of which
| the data is often irresponsibly managed and leaked putting
| people in danger.
|
| This model is fundamentally unethical to participate in from
| either side.
|
| Make some merch, and provide a mix of accessible and anonymous
| ways to donate to you.
| sorenjan wrote:
| > I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in
| those sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of
| advertising
|
| I think most advertisers track how their ads are doing by
| looking at how much the personal discount code gets used, or
| tracking links in the description. I won't ever use any of
| that, so no advertiser will ever know I didn't have to suffer
| through the ad read about their product.
| belorn wrote:
| The main area that SponsorBlock blocks are the type of sponsor
| read that typically are recorded separated from the video.
| Those are never going to be safe again blocking and it likely
| that most companies that uses that kind of services knows this.
| They are low quality, low effect, and thus (likely) fairly
| cheap.
|
| At the other end of the spectrum, we got paid content and
| sponsored gear. He who pays the piper calls the tune. It turns
| the issue to a balancing act where too much sponsored content
| will likely ruin the viewer ship (and artistic
| freedom/integrity/happiness/extra), but in turn it provide an
| income. SponsorBlock has no effect here, but naturally users
| may not click on paid content if they feel like it too much
| like an advertisement. The channel Linus Tech Tips have a few
| videos on this, and its a fairly common topic on their wan
| show.
| 542354234235 wrote:
| >Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that's never really
| sat right with me personally
|
| Patreon is people explicitly and knowingly agreeing to give you
| money in exchange for a service they want. Why does forcing
| people to watch ads preferable to that? Maybe I am
| misunderstanding what you mean when you say it doesn't sit
| right with you, because that sounds like you don't like the
| concept. I can understand if it doesn't bring in enough, but it
| is by far the most honest transaction between you and your
| viewers. Whereas with ads, you make the viewer the product and
| that doesn't sit right with me.
| ulyssys wrote:
| I think we need to rethink the whole "advertising as a way to
| support creators" model. Support comes in many forms, and
| decoupling knowledge of a thing from being paid for good work
| would likely result in higher quality outcomes.
|
| It's possible there's something to the Nostr model
| (https://nostr.com/) that could be of use here. A key part of
| Nostr is the "zap" system. In addition to allowing users to
| just merely upvote posts, users can also choose to zap a post,
| which is just a method of sending Bitcoin to the poster's
| wallet.
|
| Think of it like a tip system, as it directly and concretely
| rewards users for good content, by exchanging a token of direct
| value (money).
|
| With a system like this, advertising is something you do to get
| recognized, while the zaps are something you receive as a
| reward for valuable work (by whatever metric your audience
| appreciates).
| zamadatix wrote:
| YouTube has something a bit more direct available for
| partnered channels via the "Super Thanks" comment option. It
| allows you to tie a dollar amount to your comment on the
| video.
| roboror wrote:
| Obviously these sponsored segments are effective marketing
| otherwise no one would pay for them, but I'm sure they're far
| less effective with users who seek out tools like sponsorblock.
|
| One thing I've always wondered is do sponsors request watchtime
| data for their sponsored segments? I'm under the impression
| that they don't, which is wild to me.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| The thing that sucks is I pay for YouTube Premium to remove ads
| then youtubers always have sponsored segments. It makes my
| $20/mo useless because I'm spending time watching ads still. I
| don't have a solution I'm just stating my perspective on it.
|
| That said, SponsorBlock has been around for years. I've been
| using it for as long as I can remember. Basically any decent-
| sized channel's videos already have the sponsored segment
| skipped. I'm not sure why someone just posted it but we're well
| beyond SponsorBlock "taking off".
| Reubachi wrote:
| Same feeling here. It's gotten twice as expensive, which is
| insane by itself. But worse is the jarring rotation of
| sponsored advertisers.
|
| it's reminiscent of NASCAR. Or, like being a kid forced to
| watch advertising during TV breaks, wondering why the TV
| screen istrying to sell me cigarettes.
|
| It's maybe a bit social-media-toxic to say that some
| youtubers are my "favorite people" in that i look forward to
| their takes on the topics they cover. I lose interest though
| when that youtuber presents to me an unprompted ad for my
| testicular health.
|
| I have no solution for creators consumers or google :(
| chankstein38 wrote:
| I always wondered why YouTube themselves didn't start
| restricting sponsored segments. I don't necessarily agree
| with the idea (not a big fan of how restrictive youtube
| already is) but I always thought it was odd they were ok
| with their premium offering being devalued by sponsored
| segments.
| dnissley wrote:
| They could stop sponsored segments, but they couldn't
| stop creators and users from going to other platforms
| where they allow sponsored segments. They have far less
| control than e.g. Apple with the app store (where they
| literally can stop other app stores from ever coming into
| being, barring regulation that changes that).
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > but they couldn't stop creators and users from going to
| other platforms where they allow sponsored segments
|
| It's not like there are many viable competitors, at least
| for long form videos.
| dnissley wrote:
| If youtube stopped allowing sponsored segments that puts
| pressure on the market to produce such a thing. Even now
| creators are trying to come up with alternatives. Nothing
| has panned out, but something like stopping sponsored
| segments could very well tip a large number of people who
| want to get paid to find another way to get paid.
| kawsper wrote:
| Someone spotted a "SKIP"-button for sponsored segments
| and posted about it on the LTT-subreddit: https://old.red
| dit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1ekajmt/is_y...
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Or, like being a kid forced to watch advertising during
| TV breaks, wondering why the TV screen istrying to sell me
| cigarettes.
|
| Cigarette commercials have been illegal since 1971.
| xigoi wrote:
| Good to knoW that the entire world is under a single
| jurisdiction.
| gosub100 wrote:
| > It's gotten twice as expensive, which is insane by
| itself.
|
| No. Look, I'm not _happy_ to pay more, but YT is really
| great. It 's completely obviated the need to watch
| broadcast or cable TV for me (yes I know, sports...). They
| haven't enshittified it at all, and since I'm a music
| lover, I love that they include YT music (although I sorely
| miss its predecessor). There is the sum-of-human-knowledge
| _and then some_ !! on youtube. it 's absolutely worth what
| they charge. In fact, I dont know how they can even order
| enough storage to keep the thing running. tl;dr the
| features and content has grown proportionately with the
| price increase.
| sdoering wrote:
| Exactly why I instantly stopped paying for Spotify. They even
| went so far as to have regular advertising before podcasts.
|
| Not paying for shit like that, only because they put a clause
| in the TOS that says ad free only means ad free music.
|
| I have no qualms using any ad blocking option available. And
| I am happily paying for creators using patreon or other means
| they provide.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| This is why I started using SponsorBlock. I've been a YouTube
| Premium subscriber since it first became available (when it
| was called YouTube Red), but I'm still inundated with long-
| form "ads" for Made In cookware and other such nonsense.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _I 'm not sure why someone just posted it but we're well
| beyond SponsorBlock "taking off"._
|
| Are we, though? Regular ad blockers are still only used by a
| minority of web browser users. I would be surprised if
| SponsorBlock has larger market share than that.
| sBqQu3U0wH wrote:
| Never in my life have I been interested in any sponsor
| mentioned in a YouTube video. It's sad to see creators having
| to include these humiliation rituals in their videos just to
| keep their channels alive. To me, such tools are just a noise
| filter.
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think this is a spot where YouTube fails to give a "fully
| valid" option as a platform. As a user right now I can have
| YouTube Premium, be a Patreon, and leave a Super Thanks on a
| video but still get served a sponsored segment. At the same
| time on the creator side I have no way to target YouTube
| Premium users or people paying directly to the channel with
| different content while keeping it as the same posting on the
| same platform (i.e. all as one video post on YouTube). As a
| result, no matter how you slice it, there is no way to have
| things be "right" even given ideal and fully willing creators
| and viewers.
|
| This leaves the only realistic way for a channel to make
| reasonable money to be via ads and sponsored segments targeting
| the majority of non paying users at the expense of the rest.
| godshatter wrote:
| >I do worry that if this takes off it will just result in those
| sponsors pulling their budgets for this type of advertising,
| and it'll be another nail in the coffin for creators.
|
| I don't think I've ever purchased a product that I have seen
| advertised by a creator on YT that I hadn't already purchased
| before seeing it in a sponsored ad. That last bit I added
| because I used to use ExpressVPN and now I'm seeing some
| sponsored ads for it.
|
| The deal has been made between the creator and the company
| already, it's been added to their video, so there should not
| need to be any noticeable affect from running sponsor block for
| people like myself who don't jump to buy advertised products
| when seeing them advertised by a creator I follow. Unless there
| is some kind of feedback that YT is giving the companies about
| who is viewing their sponsored ads, I guess, but I doubt that's
| happening. So my use of sponsor block (which I don't actually
| use - the right arrow button exists) shouldn't have any affect
| on sponsor finances that I can see.
|
| I'm not against creators making money, but I don't want to see
| ads in videos placed by YT and I don't want to see them in
| videos by creators, but I understand they would like to make
| some money. I've given through Patreon to some creators, but
| I'm not going to do that for all of the dozens of creators I
| follow. If I could just press a button and tip a small amount
| to the creator when watching a video I really liked, using a
| payment method I've already set up, I'd start doing that in a
| heartbeat. But I don't know if such an animal exists.
| null0pointer wrote:
| > Sure many of us also do patreon etc but that's never really
| sat right with me personally
|
| I'm curious what it is about the Patreon model that doesn't sit
| right with you? To me it seems like it's both the most
| respectful monetization strategy to viewers, and provides the
| creator with a much more stable income than YT ads, YTP shares,
| or sponsors.
| kelnos wrote:
| Agreed; I don't get the GP's aversion here. To me, ads --
| especially ads embedded in the regular flow of a video -- are
| one of the most disrespectful things you can do to your
| audience. Asking for voluntary subscription payments (perhaps
| with some added perks beyond what you'd get as a free viewer)
| sounds like the best model possible. People will pay if they
| find your content valuable and can afford the expense. Sure,
| there are a lot of people who will freeload, but that's just
| life. If you don't find that acceptable, then you need to put
| more of your content behind a paywall.
|
| If you can't make enough money to be satisfied with the
| Patreon model, and that makes you want to create less, maybe
| that's the correct outcome.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| >I do worry that if this takes off
|
| It won't. Honestly, most people use the official apps on their
| phones/TVs. Desktops and laptops are in a minority now, sadlyu,
| but good for stuff like this. Some know about ublock origin,
| but that's still a small % compared to the population.
| kelnos wrote:
| I absolutely hate advertising in all forms, and will
| aggressively block ads whenever I can.
|
| I pay for YouTube Premium, though I have no idea how much (if
| any) of that goes toward creators. If a YouTube channel I enjoy
| has a Patreon, I'll subscribe.
|
| Advertising is psychological manipulation. I get that there
| aren't many ways for independent creators to get paid for their
| work, only a selection of sub-optimal choices, but ads are
| gross.
| simonmysun wrote:
| I would rather expect an extension like AdNauseam[1] which
| automatically play the advertisement muted in background.
|
| [1]: https://adnauseam.io/
| StableAlkyne wrote:
| The best part about AdNauseum is it solves the criticism
| people give ad-blockers: content creators still get paid
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Freetube.io has it implemented already few years.
| delta_p_delta_x wrote:
| For anyone using an Android phone, the ReVanced[1] patches for
| the YouTube app (formerly just YouTube Vanced) applies both an
| adblock _and_ SponsorBlock, on top of various other convenience
| features. You 'll need to provide your own YouTube APK file to
| patch.
|
| I'll never go back to using non-Vanced YouTube ever again.
|
| Advertisements are a blight on this world. They are the reason
| for marketing and sales budgets being quadruple that of
| engineering and UI/UX budgets, the whole 'form before function'
| thing, and enshittification in general.
|
| [1]: https://revanced.app/patches?pkg=com.google.android.youtube
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| Came here to say the same thing. Revanced YT patches for
| Android are extremely sweet. And yes, even better features (for
| viewers) than YT Premium.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| The only thing that moved me on from using (Re)Vanced was
| setting up my own Invidious instance, and using the Clipious
| app (F-Droid store) to access it.
|
| Clipious, by default, connects to public instances of
| Invidious, so you can try it out without having to setup your
| own instance.
| wanderingmind wrote:
| Sponsorblock is not as blunt a tool as people make it here. You
| can only block specific type of ads and you can whitelist whole
| channels which I do for some niche channels I subscribe to. In
| Android, I use Tubular [1], the NewPipe fork that integrates
| Sponsorblock and ReturnYoutube Dislike. My only additional
| request in this awesome app is if we can download the video after
| snipping out the sponsor block sections.
|
| [1] https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular
| anotherhue wrote:
| yt-dlp has a sponsorblock integration that removes the segments
| from the downloaded file.
| stavros wrote:
| That sounds useful, thanks! Odd that it's not on any of the
| stores (eg F-droid).
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| It is in the Izzyondroid repo: https://apt.izzysoft.de/fdroid
| /index/apk/org.polymorphicshad...
|
| I can also highly recommend the app sponsored by Louis
| Rossmann: Grayjay. It can do everything that Tubular does and
| much, much more. It also uses a plugin architecture so you
| don't have to wait for an update of the app when Youtube
| blocks it again. https://grayjay.app/
|
| It's also on the Play Store but without any plugins due to
| Google policy.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I've been using NewPipe X which is very similar, but now has
| comment reply viewing, which I really value. Does Tubular have
| that now?
| aembleton wrote:
| What's comment reply viewing? Do you mean viewing the replies
| to a comment because Tubular can do that.
| aqfamnzc wrote:
| Yes, they added comment replies functionality a little while
| ago.
| KetoManx64 wrote:
| Check out https://github.com/kieraneglin/pinchflat or
| https://github.com/meeb/tubesync You have to install them on a
| server or desktop, but they can both snip out sponsored
| sections from videos.
| Always42 wrote:
| i have been using sponsor block firefox extension for some time.
| It's incredible. Youtubers I watch (LTT, marcushouse) are
| typically shilling crap like vpn or those stupid ray bud things.
|
| Youtube is not usable without adblocker and annoying without
| sponsorblock
| rchaud wrote:
| Those channels are essentially informercials with brand deals.
| Rather than skipping sponsors, I dumped them altogether. LTT
| content especially has become far more vacuous over time. It's
| as if the videos are a vessel around which to place ads.
| flutas wrote:
| Hard agree.
|
| I used to watch LMG all the time, then it felt like the
| content turned to infomercials.
|
| Then that whole drama thing went on and the fact that (in a
| leaked video) they had a manager say "you gonna get up on
| that table and dance for me" at the end of a HR meeting with
| zero reactions aside from laughing led me to fully block all
| of their channels.
|
| To me it's clear they have an internal culture problem that
| came along with the money.
| BonoboIO wrote:
| I find the LTT stupid ideas like watercooling his server
| room funny but without Sponsorblock it's a pain.
|
| Also their merch ... this is so overpriced. A screwdriver
| for 70 dollar, when nearly the same product costs 20.
|
| But there are enough people that buy that stuff.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| As far as I'm aware it's a similar price to screwdrivers
| of similar quality. Much cheaper options exist but I
| wouldn't call them "nearly the same".
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| The same dude (Ajay) also made a "clickbait title and thumbnail
| fix": DeArrow https://dearrow.ajay.app/
|
| It's not as well known but also really great once you get used
| to it.
| jamesy0ung wrote:
| LTT is not even worth watching, it's just sponsored crap now
| disguises as a informational video
| wruza wrote:
| Please if you report segments, use a correct type!
|
| I've seen enough segments to be marked as ads when they are self-
| promotion and self-promotion when they are barely promotion and
| more like further exploration info.
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _iSponsorBlockTV v2: SponsorBlock for TVs and game consoles_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37873749 - Oct 2023 (115
| comments)
|
| _SponsorBlock - Skip sponsor, filler, intro, outro, like /sub
| reminders on YouTube_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35733993 - April 2023 (4
| comments)
|
| _SponsorBlock - Skip over sponsorship segments on YouTube_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26886275 - April 2021 (174
| 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)
| nikisweeting wrote:
| For anyone that watches a lot of YouTube I also highly recommend
| the "Tweaks for YouTube" extension, it's totally transformed my
| watching experience and fixes a lot of the little nits I have
| with the facebook UI and algorithmic feeds.
|
| https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/tweaks-for-youtube/...
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Firefox + ublock origin + this + enhancer for youtube = Youtube
| bliss :)
|
| I dont auto skip sponsors as some are actually useful but
| clicking the button works
| hnarn wrote:
| Using yt-dlp to download video files is great too because it
| has support for sponsorblock[1] which will then automatically
| remove the segments you choose from the file.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp?tab=readme-ov-
| file#sponsorb...
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| One issue with SponsorBlock is that people use skip to
| highlight[0] on music, which should be illegal. To me there often
| is no highlight for music. You need to hear the first part of the
| piece in order to enjoy the second. And people have different
| views on what counts as the highlight. I don't even like seeing
| the skip to highlight color on the scrub bar in videos that are
| just music. Skip non music[1] is good though.
|
| [0] https://wiki.sponsor.ajay.app/w/Highlight
|
| [1] https://wiki.sponsor.ajay.app/w/Music:_Non-Music_Section
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| You can just turn that off in the options including the marker
| on the seek bar.
|
| Also when it is bad don't hesitate to downvote. The database is
| only that good because of user feedback (and some anti-botting
| measures). You can check hidden segments and votes here:
| https://sb.ltn.fi/
|
| And messing about with the API is made easy here:
| https://mruy.github.io/sponsorBlockControl-sveltekit/
|
| You can find this and many more things on the wiki you already
| linked.
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| I think that turns off the skip to highlight everywhere,
| right? I still want to see skip to highlight in non music
| videos. Also, looking at the use cases on the wiki for
| highlight, musics should not be allowed
|
| > Skipping to the point/most important part of the video
| Skipping to the part of the video referred to by the title
| Skipping to the part of the video referred to by the
| thumbnail Skipping to the part of the video referenced from a
| preview/teaser at the start of the video
|
| There is no "most important part" of a piece of music. And
| the last three don't apply at all.
| Joe_Cool wrote:
| That is planned per channel but not a priority at the
| moment: https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock/issues/435
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Honestly, my brain tunes out the sponsored segment. Just like it
| did for TV ads.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I suspect if I was creating videos and putting them on YouTube,
| the best way to make SponsorBlock obsolete would be to put a
| banner on my video that lasted the duration of my video.
|
| You'd then need to create a new type of in-video adblocker that
| displayed an overlay to cover the advertisement, since you could
| no longer block it by timestamp.
| j-bos wrote:
| Youtube premium also supports skipping past commonly skipped
| video timestamps.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-13 23:01 UTC)