YouTube TV
-
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@reid-cooper said in YouTube TV:
@jmoore said in YouTube TV:
i got Netflix, Amazon, and Crunchyroll. Ill never be done
Hulu is okay, too. But not on par.
Hulu can suck it. They refuse to let you watch anything if you use an ad blocker.
<whole row of middle finger emojis>
I blacklist any website that does that, I don't care what it is.
I have a real hard time being this black and white.
Good websites that are in general just trying to earn enough from advertising to keep themselves afloat - Take ML for example - deserve to get revenue from their money making solution (i.e. ads in most cases).
It's when sites go way over board and have all kinds of pop ups and inline ads, etc.. those sites should die a bloody death!.
There is a difference between viewing ads on a site that lets you ad block versus blocking sites that block ad blockers. What they are saying isn't addressed by what you said. They aren't saying that they wouldn't view ads there, but that they wouldn't go to their sites because of how they treat people with ad blockers.
Also, ad blockers are often about blocking ad networks, it's a security thing, not an ad thing. Those sites are free to host their own ads.
Exactly, if a site hosts their own ad banners, I've no issue with that!
Like ML does!
-
So long as you don't block me if I use an adblocker!
-
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@reid-cooper said in YouTube TV:
@jmoore said in YouTube TV:
i got Netflix, Amazon, and Crunchyroll. Ill never be done
Hulu is okay, too. But not on par.
Hulu can suck it. They refuse to let you watch anything if you use an ad blocker.
<whole row of middle finger emojis>
I blacklist any website that does that, I don't care what it is.
I have a real hard time being this black and white.
Good websites that are in general just trying to earn enough from advertising to keep themselves afloat - Take ML for example - deserve to get revenue from their money making solution (i.e. ads in most cases).
It's when sites go way over board and have all kinds of pop ups and inline ads, etc.. those sites should die a bloody death!.
Fair enough, but take Hulu as an example. Their paid tier costs more than Netflix, and they still show you ads. Whole bunch of NO to that.
Right - but the target audience is different for these two services. Hulu is for the person who wants current network TV but streamed. At least that's how I see them. Sure they have a bit of their own content, and some other/older content as well, akin to Netflix.
My wife is doing a trial with Hulu because of some original programming they have, not sure we'll keep it though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@reid-cooper said in YouTube TV:
@jmoore said in YouTube TV:
i got Netflix, Amazon, and Crunchyroll. Ill never be done
Hulu is okay, too. But not on par.
Hulu can suck it. They refuse to let you watch anything if you use an ad blocker.
<whole row of middle finger emojis>
I blacklist any website that does that, I don't care what it is.
I have a real hard time being this black and white.
Good websites that are in general just trying to earn enough from advertising to keep themselves afloat - Take ML for example - deserve to get revenue from their money making solution (i.e. ads in most cases).
It's when sites go way over board and have all kinds of pop ups and inline ads, etc.. those sites should die a bloody death!.
There is a difference between viewing ads on a site that lets you ad block versus blocking sites that block ad blockers. What they are saying isn't addressed by what you said. They aren't saying that they wouldn't view ads there, but that they wouldn't go to their sites because of how they treat people with ad blockers.
Also, ad blockers are often about blocking ad networks, it's a security thing, not an ad thing. Those sites are free to host their own ads.
It's a sword that cuts both ways though.
-
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@reid-cooper said in YouTube TV:
@jmoore said in YouTube TV:
i got Netflix, Amazon, and Crunchyroll. Ill never be done
Hulu is okay, too. But not on par.
Hulu can suck it. They refuse to let you watch anything if you use an ad blocker.
<whole row of middle finger emojis>
I blacklist any website that does that, I don't care what it is.
I have a real hard time being this black and white.
Good websites that are in general just trying to earn enough from advertising to keep themselves afloat - Take ML for example - deserve to get revenue from their money making solution (i.e. ads in most cases).
It's when sites go way over board and have all kinds of pop ups and inline ads, etc.. those sites should die a bloody death!.
There is a difference between viewing ads on a site that lets you ad block versus blocking sites that block ad blockers. What they are saying isn't addressed by what you said. They aren't saying that they wouldn't view ads there, but that they wouldn't go to their sites because of how they treat people with ad blockers.
Also, ad blockers are often about blocking ad networks, it's a security thing, not an ad thing. Those sites are free to host their own ads.
It's a sword that cuts both ways though.
I don't see that at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
@rojoloco said in YouTube TV:
@reid-cooper said in YouTube TV:
@jmoore said in YouTube TV:
i got Netflix, Amazon, and Crunchyroll. Ill never be done
Hulu is okay, too. But not on par.
Hulu can suck it. They refuse to let you watch anything if you use an ad blocker.
<whole row of middle finger emojis>
I blacklist any website that does that, I don't care what it is.
I have a real hard time being this black and white.
Good websites that are in general just trying to earn enough from advertising to keep themselves afloat - Take ML for example - deserve to get revenue from their money making solution (i.e. ads in most cases).
It's when sites go way over board and have all kinds of pop ups and inline ads, etc.. those sites should die a bloody death!.
There is a difference between viewing ads on a site that lets you ad block versus blocking sites that block ad blockers. What they are saying isn't addressed by what you said. They aren't saying that they wouldn't view ads there, but that they wouldn't go to their sites because of how they treat people with ad blockers.
Also, ad blockers are often about blocking ad networks, it's a security thing, not an ad thing. Those sites are free to host their own ads.
It's a sword that cuts both ways though.
I don't see that at all.
It's a pretty huge problem either way - you don't want to be infected - I totally get that, but the advertisers want to ensure value, which means either the site has to provide data to the advertiser - which would be possibly easy for the site owner to fake, so the advertisers demand managing that part themselves. Plus the added benefit of the extra info they get from your visitors via tracking, etc.
We could have websites just put up paywalls everywhere.
Question - does ML make enough to cover all costs via the ads here? And assuming Scott isn't being paid to do the maintenance he does, you have to give that time a value and include it in the costs to host this site, and any other free or unfairly discounted fees that ML might have compared to a typical site.
-
Ad revenue is nice if you can get it, I won't deny that. I made a ton from it a hand full of years ago from a site I had up for a while.
But if 99% of everyone blocked the ads I was showing and I didn't make anything from it, well I wouldn't block anyone from using the website because it was a spare time hobby and it wasn't meant to be my primary source of income.
If you rely on ads on a website for your income, then you need to reconsider your line of work. It's like flipping burgers for a living and complaining you don't get paid enough.
-
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
It's a pretty huge problem either way - you don't want to be infected - I totally get that, but the advertisers want to ensure value, which means either the site has to provide data to the advertiser - which would be possibly easy for the site owner to fake, so the advertisers demand managing that part themselves. Plus the added benefit of the extra info they get from your visitors via tracking, etc.
Again, you are talking about something different that we are. No one is talking about blocking ads. We are talking about blocking people with ad blockers. Two different things. What you are talking about doesn't apply to the discussion that we are having.
-
My other concern is the ad networks themselves are a huge security risk and infection vector. I don't want that stuff.
-
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
We could have websites just put up paywalls everywhere.
Like Hulu or Cable? They do both. That's part of the problem.
-
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
My other concern is the ad networks themselves are a huge security risk and infection vector. I don't want that stuff.
Exactly.
-
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
If you rely on ads on a website for your income, then you need to reconsider your line of work. It's like flipping burgers for a living and complaining you don't get paid enough.
And if that is your revenue you need to reconsider telling customers to go away by blocking them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
It's a pretty huge problem either way - you don't want to be infected - I totally get that, but the advertisers want to ensure value, which means either the site has to provide data to the advertiser - which would be possibly easy for the site owner to fake, so the advertisers demand managing that part themselves. Plus the added benefit of the extra info they get from your visitors via tracking, etc.
Again, you are talking about something different that we are. No one is talking about blocking ads. We are talking about blocking people with ad blockers. Two different things. What you are talking about doesn't apply to the discussion that we are having.
How do you figure? The only way the site knows you have an ad blocker is if you are blocking ads right? Or are you saying they are actively looking for say uBlock Origin installs, and even if it's off, you're blocked from the site?
-
@tim_g said in YouTube TV:
My other concern is the ad networks themselves are a huge security risk and infection vector. I don't want that stuff.
I do agree with this point. The automation and lack of curation have put us at risk.
-
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
It's a pretty huge problem either way - you don't want to be infected - I totally get that, but the advertisers want to ensure value, which means either the site has to provide data to the advertiser - which would be possibly easy for the site owner to fake, so the advertisers demand managing that part themselves. Plus the added benefit of the extra info they get from your visitors via tracking, etc.
Again, you are talking about something different that we are. No one is talking about blocking ads. We are talking about blocking people with ad blockers. Two different things. What you are talking about doesn't apply to the discussion that we are having.
How do you figure? The only way the site knows you have an ad blocker is if you are blocking ads right? Or are you saying they are actively looking for say uBlock Origin installs, and even if it's off, you're blocked from the site?
Either way, they don't give you a chance to unblock or to only view ads that are from non-blocked sources. Blocking people with ad blockers means that they are sending a message before you have decided to unblock them. Hence my point - they don't know that you would unblock, and that's the discussion we were having.
You visit Huly, decide that they are jerk faces, and leave. Maybe you'd have unblocked them, had they not blocked us.
-
Ads are like unvaccinated children. They shouldn't exist, but they do, so one must be sure to actively avoid contact with them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
You visit Huly, decide that they are jerk faces, and leave. Maybe you'd have unblocked them, had they not blocked us.
This is so incredibly unlikely as to not be worth even discussing.
Normal people who turn on ad blockers will never turn them off, unless that's the only way to get the content. Those who troll around these parts are the rare few that might find real value in disabling them to provide funds back to the sites we visit.
-
@dashrender said in YouTube TV:
@scottalanmiller said in YouTube TV:
You visit Huly, decide that they are jerk faces, and leave. Maybe you'd have unblocked them, had they not blocked us.
This is so incredibly unlikely as to not be worth even discussing.
Normal people who turn on ad blockers will never turn them off, unless that's the only way to get the content. Those who troll around these parts are the rare few that might find real value in disabling them to provide funds back to the sites we visit.
Maybe, but that's not the point. The point was they block people who block ad blockers, it's not about the ads.
