# YouTube Is About To Delete Independent Artists From Its Site



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Exactly as I already expected ... . (follow the way of the money - money - money) 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyr ... -its-site/


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 22, 2014)

I've seen totally contradictory news about this, with news outlets posting that it both is and isn't happening. It's a shocking own goal if true, not yet sure if it is?


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> I've seen totally contradictory news about this, with news outlets posting that it both is and isn't happening.


Yes, me too. But I fear that the powerful will decide?

Let's hope not!


----------



## JohnG (Jun 22, 2014)

there's no reason for this. I will be very surprised if they do this -- it's their dead-centre demographic.


----------



## markwind (Jun 22, 2014)

Thanks for sharing.. It does seem quite true, and if it is, it's shocking enough that I can't believe it. 

Here's a more indepth and nuanced article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2 ... streaming/

One key thing is that monetizing option is going to be removed for user generated videos. And apparently some videos will be deleted indeed, but as far as I understand it as I browsed through quickly, it'll be from those artists whose Indie-labels (or distribution channels) haven't signed onto the deal with Youtube.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 22, 2014)

If this happens I don't blame Google.I blame all the greedy,entitled and ungrateful people who use an adblocker.This is one of the main factors which contributed to Google starting to think about changing their business model. Adsense is just not as profitable as it used to be and they're losing money.

People really don't realize this,but from a moral standpoint,using an adblocker is almost as bad as piracy.


----------



## markwind (Jun 22, 2014)

G.E I don't think it's much due to blame for ad-blocker.. It's due to Google's desire to advance their business model, and acknowledging how their current one is lacking for YT. Google has been steadily changing Youtube in a number of drastic ways since a few years now, this is just a next step in a long line of unpopular changes. 

Googles primary form of income is Ads.. its their business, if that one is really in danger because of add blocker.. I sincerely doubt the first thing they want to do to fix that is bully a few indies, and signing deals with all the other labels and distribution channels .. With this move on Youtube, they really aren't shifting their business model one bit. It's still primarily ad-oriented, but Google is so Huge, that it has a thousand and one things "on the side" going on too. To me it looks like Google is looking at competing with music-stream-services, with a present userbase already, they are pulling a similar trick they did with G+ and YT, which wasn't a huge success, but still. 

edit; I agree with you tho, on the moral standpoint on ad blocker. I don't use it neither myself for exactly that reason. If those 5 seconds every other video even would be too valuable for me, I shouldn't be even watching it in the first place . So I gladly watch some ads, and hey, some are awesome. Always love it when I see some user-generated ads come by, as opposed to business.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

You just have always to follow the path of money.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 22, 2014)

> I think you overestimate the impact and widespreadness of ad blocker.


Let me put it this way.As someone who gets income from adsense I can confirm that I get 3 times the traffic I used to get a few years ago and don't even make as much money as I did back then.

I also have a close friend who is partnered with Machinima and used to live entirely from his youtube channel.Last year, Machinima had to renegotiate his contract and now he gets payed just half of what he used to.

I'm not overestimating the impact of adblockers.If that's not proof enough to convince,I don't know what else can I say.More and more people are using them and the old business model is not working anymore.That's why they are making changes like introducing payed subscriptions and other things.Bullying a few indie artists is not a way for them to fix the problem.It's just a consequence of their new business model. I can't say for certain that adblockers are entirely the reason but they are definitely the main one.


----------



## markwind (Jun 22, 2014)

I think you spot a trend, but you are wayy too quick to draw conclusions as to what supports this trend, and mistakenly ascribe farrr too much power and influence to something like adblocker. You gotta dig deeper. 

Wheres you think adblocker, I think availability vs demand. Over the last few years a ton of new YT personalities have risen up to the more famous stage and as youtube is getting bigger, the amount of advertisers probably have not - quite simply; *each user is simply worth less now, as there are more of 'em*. And who knows what other dynamics are at play behind the scenes. 

Getting less from ads has a TON of reasons that are in play and more then likely none related to how Google's business is thriving. Adblocker only helps to limit the amount of folk that see the ads. But the internet is a HUGELY vast place, there won't be a shortage of people to show ads to. Youtube clips reaching the 1 Million mark, used to be HUUUUUGE, now it's 'ok'. The standards for traffic have 10 if not 100 folded or more! Psy's Gangam style has as of now got: 2,021,965,492 views. That would Unthinkable a few years back!! Absolutely unthinkable that a video could even be 10% that much.

Also, if you like proof, here's some proof on Google's ad revenue for the past three years;
$36,531 $43,686 $50,578. (Millions). 
http://investor.google.com/financial/2013/tables.html

Google is still doing OK in ad revenue. So to come full circle in this off-topic discussion for Google his change with YT, it is most likely not at all related to anything ads, but moreso Google trying to get more territory. That's the end goal right? Google ideally wants to be your only service for anything internet. As does Facebook. 

Informative links If you care for em 
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... youtube#p1 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... n-in-2013/

Also, I just read Google paid Adblocker to whitelist Google-Ads in 2013, so when on Default, it doesn't stop the ads. So obviously they do care, but I doubt them changing the indie face on YT has anything to do with it in a meaningful sense.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 22, 2014)

One more thought on the advertising thing. Google's meteoric rise was fundamentally down to two things - a good search algorithm and non-intrusive advertising. Remember all the flashing banner ads all over the place? Google made advertising actually welcome - useful specific targeted search results, placed in a neat column on the RHS of the regular results. Not objectionable. (before anyone heads me off - the VI-C ads are a model of taste and restraint).

The problem with the youtube ads is they're a step backwards. They are intrusive, so the will is there to sidestep them. While I follow the logic, equating skipping ads with piracy seems a tad hyperbolic (at best). Try as I might, I can't find the will to feel guilty fast forwarding through ads on the Tivo. Advertising has to become ever-smarter - like Google did - to survive the shifts in technology.


----------



## markwind (Jun 22, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> The problem with the youtube ads is they're a step backwards. They are intrusive, so the will is there to sidestep them. While I follow the logic, equating skipping ads with piracy seems a tad hyperbolic (at best). Try as I might, I can't find the will to feel guilty fast forwarding through ads on the Tivo. Advertising has to become ever-smarter - like Google did - to survive the shifts in technology.



I think that sense of "piracy" comes more from being close to the fire. For Youtube and other online streaming personalities out there, they are real people, a person or a group of people who trying their damnest to create some great entertainment. So it's not "A company".. these are people you know and value for the effort they put in.. and as you learn that they are only paid via ads that google shows on their channel, So you do feel guilty if you would block their ads. Simply because you care for the entertainment they provide and if that's the thing you can do to enjoy otherwise free entertainment, then you'll be happy to. 

But I can imagine, if you are far removed from that sort of scene, or otherwise unaware of that dynamic, it wouldn't be as apparent I guess.

But I agree, the Youtube ads were a step back for me too.


----------



## ThomasL (Jun 22, 2014)

Some more info for your reading pleasure here:
http://phonofile.com/insights/


----------



## G.E. (Jun 22, 2014)

> each user is simply worth less now, as there are more of 'em


Not true at all.The amount of money you get payed per click is the same.The only thing which changed is the number of clicks,and it's not like viewership has declined in any way.



> Also, if you like proof, here's some proof on Google's ad revenue for the past three years;
> $36,531 $43,686 $50,578. (Millions).
> http://investor.google.com/financial/2013/tables.html


Who am I to argue with numbers? It makes sense that the revenue has increased considering the fact that A LOT more people are watching YT videos on their phones today than 4 years ago and also the number of channels has increased exponentially.But you do realize that means they also pay a lot more for server costs and things like that,right ? Servers aren't cheap you know.  Pre-roll ads also helped a lot since you don't have to click on them and all you have to do is watch them.Some people just watch them out of laziness or they're busing doing something else.

Look, I'm not saying that I'm 100% right but I've been in the adsense community for the last 7 years and I think I have more of an inside look on things when it comes to Google.For us it has been no secret that Google is having trouble with adblockers for years.
I don't think you realize how much money they are losing because of adblockers.Keep in mind that every person who uses an adblocker still burns through server bandwidth just like everyone else.And again,servers aren't cheap. 

What you are saying is your opinion,and it's cool.I'm not saying you are wrong.But when you get to see millions of adsense partners complaining that things are bad,you start to see things in perspective.



> but I doubt them changing the indie face on YT has anything to do with it in a meaningful sense.



And I REPEAT,Bullying a few indie artists is not a way for them to fix the problem.It's just a *consequence* of their new business model.Just like global warming is a *consequence* of releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.Nobody wants to cause global warming but or greed and carelessness has consequences.



> I think that sense of "piracy" comes more from being close to the fire. For Youtube and other online streaming personalities out there, they are real people, a person or a group of people who trying their damnest to create some great entertainment. So it's not "A company".. these are people you know and value for the effort they put in.. and as you learn that they are only paid via ads that google shows on their channel, So you do feel guilty if you would block their ads. Simply because you care for the entertainment they provide and if that's the thing you can do to enjoy otherwise free entertainment, then you'll be happy to.
> 
> But I can imagine, if you are far removed from that sort of scene, or otherwise unaware of that dynamic, it wouldn't be as apparent I guess.


At least we agree 100% on this. :D


----------



## rgames (Jun 22, 2014)

I've been following this discussion for a few days but I've seen no details on the heart of the matter: the difference between the deal for the major labels and indie labels.

I keep reading "the major labels are getting *much* better deals" but what constitutes a "much better" deal?

I haven't seen any details anywhere, so it's really hard to decide what's up.

rgames


----------



## clarkus (Jun 22, 2014)

"using an adblocker is almost as bad as piracy."

I'd never really viewed watching advertisements a moral duty, but I really must do my bit for corporate America and keep the gears moving. At one time I naively thought of myself as a free agent, who might choose to turn off a television station or YouTube Channel (or at least turn the sound down). 

I now see the error of my ways.

We now usher in the future, with every comrade toeing up to the line (or the edge of their ergonomic chair) to do their part.

At one time the internet was a government program, opened up to public use, much like public radio, or public lands. It seems that no one really knew how to monetize this service at the time. Communication ... entertainment ... art .. pornography ... all of it thrown up there, willy-nilly, without any clear notion of what is was FOR. Surely it couldn't last. Clearly it didn't deserve to. 

But Google, Clear-Channel, Facebook, Amazon and the other godlike entities of our age must be given their due. Far be it from us to protest, to suggest that we might cling to an antiquated public-access model, when that was clearly making precious little revenue for ... well, not for us exactly. But for someone. Larry Page, maybe. Sergey Brin.

No public-access fur us. Nor should we pay. Nor should we turn it off.

No, we should watch every ad that crosses our screen, and be grateful for the opportunity.

To look away from, or to block those ads, it's an insult to the brilliant minds that slave night and day on their clever propaganda and cheerful brainwashing, so cunningly shaped for our receptive minds. Well, it's almost worse than piracy to turn off all that content, content that - like television - will grow and grow until it is only occasionally interrupted by what we had actually come there to view.

To protest against such a future, it's 80 % of the way to downright theft, to embezzlement, to larceny. 

I'm going to go watch some ads on YouTube right now. Excuse me.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 22, 2014)

Yeah, I feel really sorry for those people who get their ads blocked on YouTube. And now I'll go away and spend the £1.72 that YouTube paid me last year for playing my music to a few thousand people. :roll: 

D


----------



## Rv5 (Jun 22, 2014)

markwind @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Simply because you care for the entertainment they provide and if that's the thing you can do to enjoy otherwise free entertainment, then you'll be happy



I don't agree that having entertainment provided with adverts is free - I think there is a very high cost to having adverts, one not immediate, one not easy to pin down, but one very real and very costly.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 22, 2014)

> I'd never really viewed watching advertisements a moral duty, but I really must do my bit for corporate America and keep the gears moving. At one time I naively thought of myself as a free agent, who might choose to turn off a television station or YouTube Channel (or at least turn the sound down).


I've had this conversation so many times than I'm tired of it but here we go again.

Is it your birth right to bootleg the latest movie and watch it for free ? Obviously not,because people have worked hard on it and they didn't make the movie for charity.

Now you have to realize that the internet is full of small businesses or independent guys,who rely on ads to pay their bills.You are not doing your bit for corporate America.You're doing your bit for millions of normal people just like you who provide you with useful content.It's true that in the case of Adsense,Google does get a cut from the revenue.But the small guy also gets a cut and that's what's important.It's not your moral duty to watch ads,but it's not your birth right to enjoy free stuff either.

If I work hard on something and people enjoy it,I need to be compensated.But let's say I want to make my content accessible to absolutely everyone while still being compensated for my hard work.In that case I would put it out for free and have ads on my website,youtube channel,whatever.So what's the thanks that I get for trying to make everyone happy without taking even a cent out of their wallet ? They use adblockers. Do you really see nothing wrong with that ? The truth is,there's a lot of worthless content on the internet.But as worthless as it may be ,why is it good enough to enjoy but not good enough to compensate the creator ?

It's not your obligation to go buy what is advertised or click on anything you don't want to.But the least you could do is just let it be. And if once in a million years you actually see an ad that interests you and click on it,that's all anyone can ask.Even if the ads are intrusive,they are that way because the content creator wants them that way.And that's the condition he has for offering you his content.If you don't like it,just close the page.But no...you would rather have your cake and eat it too with complete disregard for anyone besides yourself.

Piracy is like stealing a CD but using an adblocker is like sneaking into a concert every day without paying for tickets.
The internet wouldn't even be what it is today without ads.Quite frankly ads are what keep the internet free and people don't realize that we're at risk of losing that freedom some day if we keep it up.This forum probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for ads.

Please explain to me why it's not okay to pirate Cubase, but it's okay to block the ads on a website you visit every day(vi-control for example), and may be in some situations more helpful to you than any piece of software can ever be ? 
Why do people have to be so entitled and ungrateful ? I guess it has to do with human psychology.If something is free,we are automatically inclined to believe that it has no value.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> Yeah, I feel really sorry for those people who get their ads blocked on YouTube. And now I'll go away and spend the £1.72 that YouTube paid me last year for playing my music to a few thousand people. :roll:
> 
> D



 o/~ o-[][]-o


----------



## clarkus (Jun 22, 2014)

Hello, G.E. -

(Interesting. I have a cousin who works for G.E. But that's another story)

I am opposed to piracy and I don't indulge in it. 

I was responding to your notion that using adblocker is "nearly as bad as piracy." 

If I go to the kitchen to get a beer during a commercial, I have utilized another strategy for avoiding what most sane people would prefer to avoid, and with good reason. 

What seems to follow from your line of reasoning is that we should watch commercials and be grateful to the people who have put them there because they are providing us with wonderful content.

But the internet has had wonderful content (as well as trash) for years. Some of this was a gamble on the part of those who took their companies public that they could monetize this whole operation. I understand that, but that doesn't mean I am going to get all warm and fuzzy when an advert appears, and pull the chair up closer, knowing I am doing my bit.

Do you? Really?

There was a fairly unmediated, unregulated internet for years, and it worked. People were and are able to sell things on it (like music software). Hey, I like capitalism, with certain vital caveats. But I don't want to see the internet become like television, and I have to admit I'm baffled that anyone who is not a major shareholder in Amazon or Google would feel otherwise.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 22, 2014)

> (Interesting. I have a cousin who works for G.E. But that's another story)


Is that a company? I have no idea.Those are my initials. :D



> If I go to the kitchen to get a beer during a commercial, I have utilized another strategy for avoiding what most sane people would prefer to avoid, and with good reason.


Going to get a beer during a commercial on TV is something which we all do.The networks still get payed because you left the TV on.But it's not the same as using an addon to bypass every single ad on the internet.TV and internet work very differently and they're not even worth comparing.

You don't need to be grateful for the opportunity of watching an ad but it's common courtesy to not block them.You can just ignore them if you're not interested.Most websites have ads to the side of the page and don't stop you from enjoying the content.And pre-roll ads on youtube can be skipped after a few seconds.If you can't wait 5 seconds I don't know what to tell you.The only annoying ads are pop-ups which shouldn't be a problem because most respectable websites don't use them.

Bottom line is,you can always ignore them and maybe,just maybe...Once every 10 years,you may actually come across an ad that gets your attention enough to click on it so the content creator can make $0.20 :lol:



> There was a fairly unmediated, unregulated internet for years, and it worked. People were and are able to sell things on it (like music software). Hey, I like capitalism, with certain vital caveats. But I don't want to see the internet become like television, and I have to admit I'm baffled that anyone who is not a major shareholder in Amazon or Google would feel otherwise.


By the way,I don't know how you use the internet,but the internet I use couldn't exist without ads.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 22, 2014)

G.E. is General Electric. And I'm sure those are your initials. Small coincidence, small attempt at humor. Sorry about that.

"TV and internet work very differently and they're not even worth comparing." 

To the extent that advertisements are ubiquitous on television, and crowd out what we like to consider the content, they are worth comparing. If you think because you are watching short commercials now, you will not be watching longer ones later, check in with me in a year.

I don't make claims for my originality: There has been plenty of commentary comparing the internet to television since the advent of Netflix, Hulu, Showtime ... and YouTube (the topic of this thread). I am old enough to remember when movies could not be viewed on the internet, back in the days of dial-up modems and slow computers. Now, of course, almost anything you can see on television you can see on the internet.

So they are worth comparing, and they are often compared, though, of course, you needn't compare them. You could, instead, compare the phenomenon we are discussing - the privatization of terrain - to a land-grab, as happened when Rockefeller et al built the railroad, and you wouldn't be far wrong. 

"If you can't wait 5 seconds I don't know what to tell you."

See above.

"By the way,I don't know how you use the internet,but the internet I use couldn't exist without ads."

The internet I use is the same internet you use, and it existed without ads until recently, if we are discussing the same ads. The topic is ads that run before you can look at "content," i.e. ads you have no choice about watching unless you block them, or walk away and do something else. Which is what I am doing right now.


----------



## ProtectedRights (Jun 23, 2014)

I have developed such skills in "not looking at ads" and "quickly close popups" that I can almost call myself a human adblocker. Whether I use software for that or not hardly makes any difference. I see this as kind of a computer game. Enemy ads show up on the screen or open as popups and goal of the game is to ignore these or close them and concentrate on what you where doing :D 

Other story at KVR or facebook. Those put ads that really catch my attention because they are for audio and music stuff :D


----------



## G.E. (Jun 23, 2014)

> If you think because you are watching short commercials now, you will not be watching longer ones later, check in with me in a year.


I won't disagree with you here.But maybe if we stop blocking the ads we have today it won't come to that(by that I mean more intrusive and annoying ads) tomorrow.I dare again to compare this to piracy by saying: If people didn't pirate so much,there would be no need for annoying iLoks which sometimes make things harder for the honest customer. 



> The internet I use is the same internet you use, and it existed without ads until recently, if we are discussing the same ads. The topic is ads that run before you can look at "content," i.e. ads you have no choice about watching unless you block them, or walk away and do something else. Which is what I am doing right now.


Please explain to me for example,in an internet without ads,how could a website capable of this exist:

- More than 1 billion unique users visit YouTube each month
- Over 6 billion hours of video are watched each month on YouTube—that's almost an hour for every person on Earth
- 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute

If my computer crashes this second,I can go on youtube and in less than 10 minutes find a step by step tutorial to fix it.(I've actually done this) All that is possible because of the power of free content monetization.We are talking about ads in general, because I haven't seen too many ads which can't be skipped on the internet.



> Other story at KVR or facebook. Those put ads that really catch my attention because they are for audio and music stuff Very Happy


Exactly.There's nothing wrong with ignoring them as long as you don't block them.You will eventually going to see one that interests you.For example I also ignore them most of the time, but I ended up signing up for Thinkspace's Cinematic Orchestration course because of an ad on vi-control.

By not blocking ads I am supporting this forum that I love and it encourages companies to advertise here,which in turn benefits me,the forum member.Because of this,vi-control can remain free and running smoothly 24/7.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 23, 2014)

G.E. you are seeing this from your point of view and are wanting to keep things free (according to your definition). However, my time is valuable to me, so if I have to waste time with ads, it's not free; it's cost me my time. So what if I have to pay to go onto YouTube to see it without ads. It's a business expense.

D


----------



## G.E. (Jun 23, 2014)

> G.E. you are seeing this from your point of view and are wanting to keep things free (according to your definition).


True.


> However, my time is valuable to me, so if I have to waste time with ads, it's not free; it's cost me my time. So what if I have to pay to go onto YouTube to see it without ads. It's a business expense.


I really want to understand your point of view.But I find it very hard to do that as I'm typing this and not having my time wasted in any way by that Stormdrum 3 ad on this page.

My time is also valuable and that's why I pay an HBO GO and Netflix subscription and enjoy my entertainment without 10 commercials in between.But why can't something be good and keep the money in my wallet while being mutually beneficial ? I've never had to sit through a 5 minute commercial in the middle of an youtube video or while reading something on the internet.Quite honestly,I do so many things on the internet that I couldn't even afford to eat after paying that many subscriptions.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 23, 2014)

G.E. @ Mon Jun 23 said:


> I really want to understand your point of view.But I find it very hard to do that as I'm typing this and not having my time wasted in any way by that Stormdrum 3 ad on this page.
> 
> My time is also valuable and that's why I pay an HBO GO and Netflix subscription and enjoy my entertainment without 10 commercials in between.But why can't something be good and keep the money in my wallet while being mutually beneficial ? I've never had to sit through a 5 minute commercial in the middle of an youtube video or while reading something on the internet.Quite honestly,I do so many things on the internet that I couldn't even afford to eat after paying that many subscriptions.


However, each time I see an ad that I don't want to see it annoys me, so I'd rather pay for a service that doesn't force these things on me. Or just block them. Besides, if I was never going to click on them anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not they are blocked.

BTW this is why the BBC is one of the best TV channels around and for most of the others I record the programmes and fast forward through the ads.

D


----------



## olajideparis (Jun 23, 2014)

Very much agreed Darryl. I remember just a few years ago the myth that facebook would become a paid service had people shaking their fists in protest. I argued that it was a invaluable service and I would be more than happy to pay for it. Fast forward a couple of years and the service is free but users are now shaking their fists over ubiquitous, intrusive ads and a lack of privacy. Go figure.


----------



## Rv5 (Jun 23, 2014)

Seems very much an over-simplified debate of a very complex issue. It depends on your definition of free to start with. I know people with tens of millions of YouTube hits that do not monetise their channel; the cost in their eyes is greater than the money they'd receive. Viewing both figures and advertising purely as numbers just ignores the humanity on the receiving end of it, misplacing emphasis. The huge encompassing far reaches of advertising and the massive repecussions on a socialogical, economical and psychological scale is a thesis in itself. To umbrella advertising all as one thing is misleading and incomplete. To umbrella all advertising as good or as bad is also misleading and incomplete. The actions of a huge global company like google cannot give a reflection of the state of advertising vs adblock vs entertainment vs free vs anything without having a deep understanding and background of the development of the platform and how trends have been established and changed, and that kind of thing is often only really clear after it's happened. 

Piracy is just a whole other level of weird mis-understood behaviours that cross many disciplines. Multiple companies in various software/entertainment fields report that since their wares have been pirated their sales have increased. This doesn't really man much unless it's in context and part of a bigger picture. The information we have access to is often incomplete and even if it was, it doesn't automatically make for a wise and insightful view of the matter at hand.


----------



## G.E. (Jun 23, 2014)

> Besides, if I was never going to click on them anyway, it doesn't matter whether or not they are blocked.


That's not entirely true.If that was true,then the clicks to views ratio wouldn't have declined so drastically over the last few years.It's too big of a coincidence that happens at the same time adblockers start becoming popular.You never know when you'll click on one.But even then, some people get payed based on the number of views (not clicks).Like my friend who was partnered with Machinima for example.That's why they had to renegotiate his contract after 3 years.His videos were getting over 25 000 views on a regular basis but not even half of those people were seeing the ads.And I'm not talking about annoying video ads which you have to sit through.I'm talking about regular banners on the side of the page.Basically,just by watching his video you were contributing to his paycheck.

So is it immoral to block ads ? No.Because you don't understand why it's wrong.But I've actually had people tell me that they use an adblocker just out of spite so others can't make money.When you work long shifts flipping burgers for minimum wage, only to come home and see someone making 5 times more than you by just talking to a camera,it's hard not to be envious and spiteful.I guess...I understand where those people are coming from at least.It's the other group of people which I don't understand.

And Rv5 is right also.Labeling all advertising as good or bad is just wrong.Even though I personally swing more to the good side, I agree that is just an opinion and not a fact.Though I would be curious to see those people with millions of youtube hits that don't monetize their channel. :D

It's all a vicious circle in my opinion.If you release something for free hoping to get ad revenue,people complain about ads and block them.If you charge a fee,your content gets pirated.There's just no way to please everyone in a world where we've been spoiled by all the content and tools available to us.People just think that they're entitled to anything.Of course,not everyone is like that.


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2014)

G.E. @ Sun Jun 22 said:


> ...using an adblocker is almost as bad as piracy...


I see you're already getting enough flack for that statement.
Let me tell you why I use an adblocker...

My Wonderful Wife made a donation to a cleft palate foundation.
Shortly after that I was inundated w/ ads for this foundation.
While trying to read the NYT I would have to look at a huge hi res pic
of a tragic 3rd world child with a deformed face.
This was on every page of every article I was trying to read.
It was disturbing, really hard to look at, and became entirely oppressive over time.
I also noticed that while reading the NYT, I was getting ads from my fav devs 
that I know and love from here.

I was feeling stalked- it creeped me out.
So I installed an adblocker.
I know I'm still being stalked, but at least now I don't have to see the STASI
talking pictures of my house from across the street every time I open my front door.

That's my take on "Targeted Ads", and why I started using an adblocker.
It was a defensive action for my piece of mind.

my 2¢

k


----------



## G.E. (Jun 23, 2014)

KEnK, all I can say is that nothing is black or white.I guess the solution I'm proposing is to install an adblocker, but be considerate and disable it for the websites you truly appreciate and aren't being abusive with their ads.You do have that option.

By the way,I apologize to Gunther.I realize that I've hijacked this thread and turned it into a debate about ads.I didn't mean to. :lol:


----------



## KEnK (Jun 23, 2014)

Just so you know-
I do sometimes get ads on YT.

I've occasionally looked at the "allow this ad" portion
of the adblocker I use,
but I really don't know what it's about. 
Don't actually know if it's selective or not regarding YT vids.

It's not clear to me how to make exceptions
and frankly, don't want to put the time into it to figure it out.

k


----------



## JCmusik08 (Jun 23, 2014)

I'll tell you, the only thing that's more atrocious than people who use adblock are the large corporations who air their ads on youtube and think that in some world where the NSA reads our emails that it's okay to disable the mute button on my own computer.


----------

