113
submitted 11 months ago by haxor@derp.foo to c/hackernews@derp.foo

There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] bangupjobasusual@sh.itjust.works 55 points 11 months ago

This is an arms race YouTube cannot win

[-] Diabolo96@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They can win by making videos only accessible via account and aggressively banning adblock users. It will hurt it at first but people would rather accept it instead of finding a replacement. I expect this to happen in a few years.

[-] xan1242@lemmy.ml 13 points 11 months ago

Nothing can beat a VCR with an ad skip button.

And I am not afraid to use it.

[-] hansl@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

They can just embed the ads in the actual video, server side.

[-] VicentAdultman@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Sponsorblock would still work, wouldn't?

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah. Which is pretty much undefeatable unless they get rid of the ability to skip sections of a video entirely and I don't think there'll be wanting to do that. Sponsor block doesn't exactly block things, it just skips sections of a video that the community has submitted it's not quite the same thing.

Those sections might be intro animations, that bit where they go "hey guys my name is XYZ YouTuber smash that like button and don't forget to subscribe comment and ring that bell!" etc

[-] hansl@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Ads can be randomly placed so there is no specific timestamp to skip.

This would obviously be very costly for Google, which is likely why they haven’t done it yet, but ultimately an ad blocker wouldn’t be able to block those.

[-] VicentAdultman@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Don't give them any ideas, a'right? But yeah. That's true. We could skip those identifying per frame/time, but adblocking would need more resources.

[-] xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well, if googles web integrity api becomes reality, every site that makes money from ads will refuse to serve any modified client.

[-] skankhunt42@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

I thought they backed out of that a couple weeks ago already

[-] cowfodder@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago
[-] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It doesn't really matter they can't implement it if the other browsers aren't on board.

So they haven't so much backed out as much as they've been forced to give up with the idea because no one else wants to do it. Because why would you, it only benefits YouTube?

[-] The_Cunt_of_Monte_Cristo@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

You are underestimating companies. Twitch won this race. YouTube can win too.

[-] Couldbealeotard@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

How did twitch win? Would you not say that YouTube has a larger user base, and therefore a larger target of this sort of cracking?

[-] bangupjobasusual@sh.itjust.works 4 points 11 months ago

Twitch has the unique use case of live streaming, which makes the content’s timeliness a factor in the users experience.

this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2023
113 points (97.5% liked)

Hacker News

4091 readers
2 users here now

This community serves to share top posts on Hacker News with the wider fediverse.

Rules0. Keep it legal

  1. Keep it civil and SFW
  2. Keep it safe for members of marginalised groups

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS