[dissident_coder]

This is why I refuse to turn off my adblocker on YouTube, and never will. I'm not rewarding YouTube with my money (for YT Premium) for being absolutely useless at vetting their advertisers. I'd rather just not use YouTube at all if it comes to it.

[reustle]

You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible. Paying for premium brings them closer to a state where they don’t need advertising at all.

[dkersten]

No, they can still vet, just doing so would make them less money. That is their problem, not yours or mine. If they can’t figure out a way to vet at scale, then they don’t deserve that scale.

Most of us could be more profitable if we decided to act unethically or illegally. Serving scam adverts (and my YouTube and Google adverts appear to be substantially more scam than not) is Alphabet saying they care more about profit than anything else and they should, quite frankly, be punished for it, both through things like fines from advertising standards bodies, and by more people taking matters into their own hands by using Adblock. I personally would also vote for any politician who put laws into place to make executives personally liable if their platforms are found to not do enough to get and combat fraud and scams on their platforms, because these companies actively profit from these scams through advertisement revenue.

[taylodl]

> That is their problem, not yours or mine.

Wrong - if Google can't make the money they need on YouTube then it's our problem. They'll need to run more ads and they'll take more draconian measures to ensure you can't block their ads. You can better believe they'll further monetize their efforts by selling the needed tech to other web sites. We all lose in that scenario.

[dkersten]

They don’t have to make massive stacks of profit. They are choosing to unethically profit from people being scammed, because it makes them more money. They don’t need to make more money. Alphabet make 60 Billion USD in profit in 2022.

[Dolototo]

Dude...

YT is cheap like hell.

It has one of the most diverse high quality content I know.

Way of entry for producers/creators is tremendously low.

YT löst a lot of money for years.

If we are not even able to pay 12$ / month for YT what do you want? Everything for free adfree?

[dkersten]

So? That doesn’t excuse profiting from allowing scammers to defraud people.

[dissident_coder]

> You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible.

This isn't my problem.

[ska]

> You eventually get to a scale where vetting is near impossible.

That's a choice, no?

[notnullorvoid]

Even in the impossible scenario that 100% of users paid, they would start introducing ads elsewhere like for higher bitrate/resolution. Those ad spots are valuable.

Ads are Google's main businesses, they should be responsible for vetting. Saying it's a scaling issue is a poor excuse, and if that is their legitimate stance then it should be used as evidence that the government needs to step in.

[Barrin92]

>where vetting is near impossible

No, that's a choice. If Youtube hired 5k qualified people to vet their ad partners properly the problem would be solved tomorrow. It's "impossible" in the sense that this would eat into their profits rather than outsourcing the misery to the consumer.

[dghlsakjg]

The largest television networks in the world haven't reached that scale yet...

[wharvle]

Scale of ad slots sold, not scale of audience. Google’s elected to do this the way that makes it impossible for them to scrutinize what they’re broadcasting to the world, because it makes line go up-and-right slightly better than doing it the other way, so long as they aren’t forced to take responsibility for what they’re promoting.