Google could kill YouTube Vanced for good::The company is exploring an integrity API that could lock down WebViews with DRM

  • bstix@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a waste of time. People who bother installing Vanced are not likely to click a single god damn ad even if it’s forced on them.

    So yes, Google can choose to bother some people and get higher statistics on ad views, but the companies paying for the ad will not see one single fucking sale more. This lowers the value of the ad.

    They’re chasing imaginary revenue.

    The value of exposure isn’t real either. The phone might play it but I don’t fucking watch something that I don’t want to watch. I’ve been online since before online ads were a thing and not once have I bought anything from any online ads.

    Just let me opt out of that circus for fuck sake.

    • nutsack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t understand this toxic level of optimism found on this platform. if they do client integrity checks, nobody will be able to use an ad blocker. you will have to use an approved YouTube client. it will result in higher ad revenue to Google.

      all of these folks who are using revanced will watch annoying ads repeating a thousand times over and the content of the ad will be stuck in their brains exactly as intended. the companies that pay for the ads don’t care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.

      what part of this is imaginary?

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        companies that pay for the ads don’t care if you think you are immune to propaganda. they want you to watch.

        They don’t pay for ads just to waste my time. They buy ads to sell products.

        Forced advertising does not work on the kind of people who already do everything they can not to watch ads.

        if you think you are immune

        I’m literally not watching my phone if YouTube or other stream goes into ad mode. I do not see the ad.

        The imaginary part is that Google gets paid just as much for showing ads that don’t work as they do for showing ads that do work.

        Forced advertising is good for Google. It’s not good for the users nor the companies who pay Google.

        • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s not true. Do you think, say, coca cola cares if you click on ads? Not all ads are looking for clicks. Some just want to get impressions.

          • bstix@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes it is true. They don’t make an impression when I don’t see it.

            Call me old fashioned, but I have hands. I physically put my phone away because I do not want to watch the screen on my phone when the screen is showing an ad instead of showing what I wanted to see.

            Companies are paying Google to show me ads that I don’t see.

            Coca Cola’s brand recognition does not come from YouTube ads. It comes from signs in the real world, visual merchandising in stores and product placement in shows.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is only true for large, legacy companies like Coca Cola though. This doesn’t work for startups shilling shitty headphones, flashlights, VPNs, mobile games, etc because you’re unlikely to randomly come across their product when walking around the grocery store for example.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you aren’t paying them for Premium, or viewing their ads, you’re literally costing them money. They’d rather stop you from even consuming the bandwidth.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, that part is working really well. I’ve been using YouTube less and less every time they’ve worsened the free service. I don’t even bother with the revanced loopholes, I’ll just don’t use YouTube to find stuff. Most of the content is made for monetisation purposes anyway.

        I’m not saying they shouldn’t do it, or that I don’t understand why. It’s just a prime example of the internet going to shit.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not disagreeing you, just stating the facts. If we aren’t paying for it, and not watching their ads, we can’t expect to be considered at all. I paid for Premium for a few months, just canceled it while I catch up on some other things. We still have the freedom to pick and choose which services we pay for which is fine by me.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you give thumbs ups and add comments, you’re still providing user generated content that increases the value of the content you watched, so they’re still getting something out of it. Your contributions could go on to drive someone else to watch the video which could end up seeing the ad you blocked.

        It’s a question of what that value is that you’ve provided to the service. It’s the same question Reddit will be finding out the answers to over the next couple months.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can try to look it up if you want, but I’d suspect those sort of interactions are fractions of a penny on the dollar compared to revenue from Premium or Ads.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Does it really cost them? If we take it to the extreme and say everyone collectively decided to stop costing them money by watching their content for free, what would that do to the value of their platform?

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, Bandwidth, servers, storage are all expensive. If everyone stopped paying or seeing ads they’d kill the product and you’d have nothing. There is no viable replacement for YouTube. Most channels would cease to exist. Only the larger ones would be able to afford to figure out how to keep going. The ladder would be pulled up for any small or new creator looking to break in.