Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jameslars 948 days ago
If this is the analogy, why doesn't Google try something like protecting from sticks in the first place? For example, they could lock all of YouTube behind a login & paywall.

It seems like YouTube is attempting to FORCE people to adhere to its desired business model. If ad-supported video playback is not economically viable, then maybe it's time for a new model to be born? There is no obligation for me to pick up the stick and hit myself with it because Google says I should. I downloaded a bunch of bits that Google sent to my computer, and then I read the bits I cared about. That's how every webpage has worked in my experience.
1 comments
acdha 948 days ago
They offer you a direct payment option which would quite well for not seeing ads while still supporting the people who make the videos which are so important to you.
link
jameslars 947 days ago
And yet it's optional and they also keep sending me the same videos for free along with ads.

I could opt to close my eyes and ears for every ad they send instead and it would have the same effect at the cost of my personal time. Ad blockers are just time shifting Tivos in disguise. Google has no say in how I spend my time interacting with the bits they already sent to my computer.

link
acdha 947 days ago
Advertisers know you don’t always watch, but they price in the odds that the ad will catch your eye and pay.

Ad blockers drive those odds to zero, so the advertisers won’t pay.

Personally, I like paying people who make things I enjoy, but if you feel you’re entitled to their work without paying for it, just be honest about it and be you.

link