• Eggyhead@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Do adblocked videos prevent creators from having another view registered for a monetized video?

    I don’t know how to do a video platform. If I had the time and skill, I’d rather make a FOSS, federated platform for creators/studios to host and finance however they want. Odds are they would never be as egregious as YouTube is being, and I’d be less inclined to skip their ads.

    • scrion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.

      Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.

      • Eggyhead@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.

        Well this kind of renders the whole “if you don’t watch the ads, content creators can’y get paid” morality approach meaningless, don’t you think?

        Where is the money supposed to come from? Companies pay Google to put up ads expecting a return on the investment. If Google starts forcing people who inherently avoid advertisements to watch advertisements, what value is that actually supposed generate for either of Google’s customers? I’d just walk away from the screen like I do with regular television.

        • scrion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I don’t think that was ever a moral issue. We’re talking about large corporations in a capitalist setting, moral is not something to bring up in that discussion.

          Also, no one said end users are morally obliged to watch ads. The gist is: some kind of revenue stream must exist so that the operator of the platform keeps it running and the creators are enabled to create content.

          A paid subscription is a perfectly valid alternative, as are platforms like Nebula, which use that exact model of paid subscriptions. Patreon is a bit tricky since it only serves the content creator. Google famously shut down all kinds of projects without any consideration for their users, I have no doubt they’d pull the trigger on YouTube if it would serve them.

          In a perfect world, ads should not exist at all. It took us decades to even regulate ads that are obviously harmful (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, ads propagating body issues via heavily manipulated images etc.), none of that should be forced down people’s throats. Unfortunately, however, we don’t live in a utopia, but in a capitalist hellscape, so when I talk to people, I actually want to know their practical ideas of keeping the show running.

          Currently, I couldn’t recommend anyone to not run an adblocker, the internet would become unusable due to how intrusive and downright dangerous ads have become, both in content for certain audiences, and as networks to deliver malware.

          Simple answers just longing for the good old days of the small web are nothing more than nostalgia and willfully ignore how the internet and the society using it have changed. That’s not a practical or remotely useful answer.

          We are watching the system change as we speak, and I came here to discuss alternatives. I did not ask a moral question, although I do absolutely believe that people creating high quality content should be paid for their time. I genuinely want to know what people’s ideas and beliefs are and how they think the system will continue to work.

          • Eggyhead@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            I’m sorry, I didn’t meant to imply you were making the morality argument, it’s just one I hear frequently. I meant to bring it up as an example.

            I honestly don’t mind ads as a business model. I just wish they were non-invasive and relevant to the content.

            • scrion@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Thanks, I do actually appreciate that comment.

              It might have sounded like that at first, but I’m not actually shilling for a company trying to increase ad revenue, and I do hate what current ads have become.

              Ads should not manipulate or downright endanger people, and there are also cases where we need to find a different mechanism to deliver ads to people entirely - if a podcast (for me, that means mostly audio dramas) advertises itself as immersive and is not on a platform where I can get an ad-free experience, I simply won’t be able to listen to it. Being immersed into a supernatural, cosmic horror doesn’t go well with hearing about how I should switch my business page to SquareSpace.

              I was fine with the “watch these 3 relevant ads in sequence and we leave you alone for the rest of the movie” concept, for example. That to me looks like an indirect form of payment, it’s transparent (no obnoxious product placement) and I can enjoy the rest of whatever media I’m consuming in peace.