Videos are often monetized via sponsor placements in the videos themselves. The creator of the video would like an accurate view count to report to their sponsors.

This is completely separate from the YouTube platform ads and monetization which is what the ad blockers are blocking.

▲

xp84 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is the best counterargument I've seen for why YouTubers might be vexed by this, however I've felt it was pretty fair to expect that adblocked views don't really "count" in the "game" that you can argue YouTube is operating with the "View Count" metric and therefore I don't see much room for anyone to feel indignant or wronged.

Imagine a creator whose viewers all watched with ads blocked (and without YT Premium either). That creator is, objectively speaking not partnering with Google in any way, they're just using the platform as a free CDN. So the failure of Google to provide that person with accurate metrics for him to operate his business (that Google isn't a part of) isn't all that offensive.

So someone losing visibility to their "views" if it's because of non-monetized views (adblocked ones) seems proportionally fair.

There's always self-hosting your videos, but yes, that's expensive. It's a tradeoff the content creator has to make: A cut of your revenue + a ton of content restrictions, in exchange for discoverability + free CDN.

▲

moffkalast 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Not true, most all but the very top creators have stopped relying on Youtube's measly ad revenue and just run sponsored content instead, in which case the actual view count (minus SponsorBlock users anyway) is very relevant to show how much they actually reached.

What Google gets out of it is free content for their platform, which other platforms seem to be only able to dream about, and accurate metrics would be something like the lowest possible bar to provide. But well, turns out you can do just about whatever if you're the defacto monopoly and the experience doesn't matter anymore, not for creators, not for the consumers.

▲

kelnos 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google provides YouTube to creators because Google derives a benefit from it. If they don't want those "freeloaders" hosting videos without Google getting anything in return, then they can charge for it, or delist them, or delete their videos, or whatever.

But they are getting something in return: a near monopoly in this particular market.

Not providing correct view counts just because some of those viewers use adblockers feels kinda petty.

	▲	xp84 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> then they can charge for it, or delist them, or delete their videos, or whatever That doesn't really apply because these creators' video views aren't entirely adblocked. Just some portion of the views are. So it would be dumb for Google to punish the creators so harshly. Also, you're telling me that you think there would be fewer pitchforks out if Google just started deleting and banning channels due to their users' adblocking behavior?

▲

Intralexical 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What about adblocked views by YouTube Premium subscribers?

The point is that a view counter should show an accurate and honest count of views, because that's what it's presented as and lying is bad. Why should ad blocking have anything to do with that? Companies should aim to protect their revenue stream by providing a good service, not cripple their service to match the basest vision of their revenue incentives.

	▲	shagie 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In looking at my filter log (I use AdGuard on a Mac), I do not see the API calls associated with YouTube getting blocked. In particular, the "cross device continuity" (Continue Watching) feature provides the data sufficient for monetization of the channel view. When I looked at the same video while in incognito (and signed out), I could see some requests originating getting blocked that were not at all present during my watch of the video under premium. --- For YouTube, what is a "view?" If a chunk is downloaded, is that a view? If the next chunk is downloaded, is that two views? How do you verify that it's not the person who watched the first chunk? YouTube doesn't appear to be counting views based on chunks downloaded as there are lots of ways to download chunks. Even doing things like scrubbing the video back 5 minutes would produce incorrect chunk download counts. From this it appears that YouTube is counting views based on an API call from the page that identifies you (arguably through privacy issues) so that you downloading 1 chunk or 10 chunks only counts as one view. That API call appears to now be blocked. Counting chunks downloaded would arguably be even less truthful or accurate than counting API calls.
	▲	what 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>lying is bad So turn off your ad blocker so you don’t lie about your views.

▲

xeromal 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't reply to your deeper comment but there is a youtube specific extension that blocks ads to sponsor placements by skipping them.

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/sponsorblock-for-yo...

Has 2 million users which isn't a ton but just mentioning that it is used and it works well.

▲

slaymaker1907 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

There is also kind of a built in sponsorblock for YouTube on mobile. If you double tap to skip 5s repeatedly, a button quickly pops up to skip ahead (not explicitly about sponsor segments, but I'm sure this is what it is used for 99% of the time).

	▲	mvdtnz 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		FYI this is a premium-only feature. It's one that I am very thankful for. I pay a pretty penny for youtube and I don't appreciate "creators" end-running around that to peddle their shitty AG1 supplements or woodworking tools I can't buy in my country.

▲

hirako2000 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And this ships as a plugin to some unofficial YouTube player. The actual number is far higher.

▲

bruce511 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

People who install ad blockers are perhaps not good recipients of in-video sponsor placements. So maybe not counting them as viewers is at least honest to the sponsor?

With something like YouTube there are so many different parties involved. Sponsor, creator, Google, advertiser, consumer. Clearly the system could be optimized for any of them, or it can present some balances that naturally make one or more of the groups unhappy. Clearly it's easy to criticize the system if it's not optimized to your perspective of it.

It's very unpopular to say it, (cue downvotes) but on the whole I think Google mostly gets it right. Advertisers have a channel to reach consumers [3]. Creators have a way to earn income [1], consumers watch for free [2], Google makes money (and provides infrastructure).

[1] sponsorships are allowed, although none of that revenue flows to Google, which I think is fairly tolerant of Google.

[2] Google has an option to turn off ads with YT Premium.

[3] Ad blockers serve consumers, but hurt the whole system. I get that they're very popular here, but they are effectively a tax on Google, and now on creators. A more ethical approach IMO (and ethics are both personal and subjective) is to pay for YT Premium if you'd prefer to suppress ads. Then you are "paying your way" not free-loading.

▲

rectang 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I subscribe to Premium for this reason, and am mostly content with my subscription. Two aspects I don’t like are that it’s tied to my centralized google identity, and that YouTube doesn’t have enough competition.

	▲	j-bos 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Hear hear on all three points.

▲

imiric 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> A more ethical approach IMO (and ethics are both personal and subjective) is to pay for YT Premium if you'd prefer to suppress ads.

Labeling people who use ad blockers as unethical is hypocritical, to say the least.

The supremely unethical behavior is coming from companies who decide to use advertising as their business model, and the entire adtech industry that powers it. They lie, cheat, steal, and exploit user data in perpetuity, yet users are supposed to feel guilty for trying to block all of this hostility? Give me a break.

> consumers watch for free

They don't watch for "free". They pay with their data and attention, which is worth much more than any reasonable price Google could charge for the service. This discrepancy is so large, in fact, that all ad-supported web platforms should be paying users for using their service.

Choosing to pay for YT Premium simply makes the experience more bearable by removing the annoyance of being constantly bombarded with ads, but all the shady data extraction, profiling, tracking, and manipulation still happens behind the scenes, across all Google products, and beyond.

The fact society has accepted a business model that introduces a hostile middleman in all of their business transactions, and that we've been brainwashed into calling this "free", is deeply disturbing. Not least because the same machinery is also used to serve us propaganda and manipulate us not just into buying things, but into thinking and acting in ways that benefit the agenda of whoever has the will and a negligible amount of resources to run an ad campaign. And yet we wonder why society is crumbling around us. It's some perverse version of Stockholm syndrome.

So, no, I will never feel guilty for using ad blockers, and no sane person should. If content creators want my money, they can choose more ethical business models, which are also likely to be less profitable and more difficult to manage. But, hey, that is the price to pay if you care about ethics, and not participating in machinery that exploits your viewers.

	▲	bruce511 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		>> Labeling people who use ad blockers as unethical is hypocritical, to say the least. If I used an ad blocker you could say I was hypocritical. Since I don't, you can't. You're welcome to disagree on ethics of course, but its not hypocrisy. >> If content creators want my money, they can choose more ethical business models, which are also likely to be less profitable and more difficult to manage. But, hey, that is the price to pay if you care about ethics, and not participating in machinery that exploits your viewers. So you want creators to be more ethical, bypassing YT, but in the meantime you'll support Google by watch YT? Which as you point out is tracking you? I'm not sure I follow your argument here...