| ▲ | DonsDiscountGas 4 hours ago |
| > Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’” Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me? |
|
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I strongly agree, and it frustrates me when people and companies claim that advertising their own products "doesn't count." I cancelled my YouTube Premium plan because of ads. These are all the ads they permit on Premium, despite advertising everywhere that Premium removes all ads: * Ads in YouTube feeds for other google products and services. * Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner. * Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner. * Advertising overlays (supported IN THE APP BY GOOGLE) for products and services from the channel owner. * Email advertisements for Google products and services. * Community post advertisements from channel owners which show up in the YouTube feed. I contacted support to enquire and they state these are not considered advertising. |
| |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t mind the in video sponsors. Some are good (ok map men ones are good), but crucially it’s not really something YouTube could directly block. They could put terms and conditions in place, but you’re driving product placement and it becomes a slippery slope. Howver recently I’ve noticed adverts for “membership” for channels, and that is getting me close to picking my youtube habit.
Same with Spotify and advertising concerts, but that seems to have gone away for me after I complained. Sadly even the bbc does adverts on iPlayer. You used to be able to instantly skip them, but then in a big (internal) fanfare some idiot decided they could make them not skippable and increase some metrics and then get a promotion. | | |
| ▲ | kmeisthax 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | YouTube actually does block sponsor spots in videos if you have Premium. They call it "Skip Ahead" and don't really talk about sponsor spots, but practically speaking it's 9/10 just the "skip sponsor segment" button. I remember about 10-15 years ago YouTube actually did try to ban sponsor spots in videos, but the backlash from creators was strong enough that they walked that back to "ok well we'll allow sponsor spots but you can't just insert the sponsor's own ad, it's gotta be your ad read and B-roll". | | |
| ▲ | elondaits 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most of the UI features that YT added over the last few years can be thought of as a way to skip sponsor ads. e.g., thumbnail previews on the seek bar, the little histogram on the seek bar, auto-chapter detection, and playing at 2x when you click and hold on the video. | |
| ▲ | stravant 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm pretty sure that skip ahead is deliberately broken to satisfy advertisers. Sponsorblock has zero issue jumping to the precise moment after the sponsor vs jump ahead always leaves just enough time to still hear the name of the sponsor. | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They make it slightly easier to find the end of a sponsor segment, while still requiring me to manually interact with the video. As an ad blocker I score that either F+ or D-. | |
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 42 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes it tends to work one at a time, but some videos have two sponsor segments and it doesn’t work the second time. I assumed it skipped to where people often skip to. | |
| ▲ | hhh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | that's not blocking though. It's allowing you to skip over the areas people commonly skip in videos where they take the data from everyone. I get them at sponsor slots of course, but also intros often. Because it's not removing it entirely, I would not consider that blocking. | | |
| ▲ | SllX 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The parent’s characterization is fine. 9/10 times (more in my own experience) it is the functional equivalent of a sponsor blocker. That it technically isn’t that specifically is immaterial, because if it works, that’s because people are skipping the sponsor segments in large enough quantities for it to easily become that. That said, I don’t think YouTube owes it to Premium subscribers to add a sponsor block. That’s part of the video’s content as it was provided to YouTube, and YouTube never advertised YouTube Premium as something which will block in-video sponsor reads. This is part of how YouTubers make a living & a Premium sub doesn’t replace the money they receive for those the way it does for YouTube’s own ads. |
| |
| ▲ | Grombobulous an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s such a great feature, and I see why YouTube gates it to Premium. Once you’ve transitioned from an ad-watching customer to a paid one, YouTube actually turns into something that treats your product experience and satisfaction as important. It’s fascinating how it switches that off for non-paying users. Not a lot of companies’ services do that so obviously and blatantly. In other words, when YouTube is being watched for free, they have that typical engagement incentive: keep you watching as long as possible, watch as many ads as possible, etc. When you’re paying? Who cares, skip the content if you want. Use Gemini to summarize it, we don’t care if you watch the video. | | |
| ▲ | godshatter an hour ago | parent [-] | | Try watching YouTube without logging in through a VPN with an ad blocker. You get 5s black screens and "Experiencing Interruptions?" popups. If they don't want people watching videos without logging in, they should gate them behind a login screen rather than fucking with their users. | | |
| ▲ | Xirdus 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I was getting that when logged in, without VPN (but still ad blocking.) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jonhohle an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I worked on Prime during the rollout of Prime Video and shortly after (maybe a year or so) pre-roll for other Prime Video content was inserted. I brought it up in a meeting with our org (but the Amazon Video team wasn’t present) and one of our business guys shrugged it off as not interrupting content, blah, blah, blah. I said the agreement was ad-free content, not uninterrupted content. The conversation stopped and nothing was done. I worked on backend subscription management and the implementation of benefits. The team that business guy worked on was the group eventually at the center of the predatory subscription issue (I can’t say whether they were still around when that happened or not). | | |
| ▲ | sanex an hour ago | parent [-] | | Cheap corporate sellouts are the problem with every big company. |
| |
| ▲ | ApolloFortyNine 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.
>
>* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner. I actually agree this is a bit annoying, but also the alternative is Google banning Youtubers from finding their own advertising partners, which I'm sure people would hate. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy. To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Do you only watch videos from creators who are not trying to make money? If they couldn't make money, 80% of the content worth watching would not be produced. Premium works for me. Is it perfect, no. But there's that saying about perfect being the enemy of good. | | |
| ▲ | BoxOfRain 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Do you only watch videos from creators who are not trying to make money? To go on a related tangent, I genuinely did prefer youtube during its period when amateurism was more or less compulsory. Photonicinduction for example, he had a fantastic channel which as far as I know was barely commercialised; he works full time in a relevant field and shared his enthusiasm for high-energy electronics as a hobby. It's harder to find that kind of thing these days, while I've nothing against the people doing it professionally (we all must put our bread on the table somehow) there's sometimes a level of authenticity in genuinely amateur content that I find is often lacking in content which must chase the opaque whims of the algorithm to remain commercially viable. This is no negative reflection on the creators who are usually acutely aware of this themselves, but I do vaguely dislike what youtube has become compared to what it once was. It's like a town square full of buskers got bulldozed and replaced with a giant HMV. |
| |
| ▲ | jdb9001 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do they not have a little sponsor skip thing? Where like if many people skip a segment, itll pop up like hey, wanna skip? I mean, thats about all they can do besides forcing youtubers to disclose exact segment lengths which would concretely hurt them whereas this provides a little sort of breathing room, or just straight up ban them, both of which would dramatically hurt the platform. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I understand they have an opt-out feature now. With positive interaction one can skip one sponsored segment (which works most of the time). The problem is that it's not automated. It required digging one's phone out of their pocket, or reaching for the remote. That's still really annoying. To point: it's still full of ads, even if they have the skip button now. YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads. | |
| ▲ | LoganDark 13 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | YouTube Premium now has "skip ahead" which is basically this. Or you can install SponsorBlock and get a much better version for free. |
| |
| ▲ | nephihaha 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour. YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money. | | |
| ▲ | godshatter an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm not saying this is the way to go, but damn do I miss the old internet where passionate people presented information for free, at worst showing an affiliate link for an information-related book. | |
| ▲ | choo-t 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wikipedia predates Youtube by five years. Unpaid cooperation of human to generate knowledge or entertainment predates YouTube by tens of thousands years. | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I'm in favour of people making money from their work. That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads. > YouTube isn't paying people properly I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank. | | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac an hour ago | parent [-] | | >I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago? So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine). |
|
| |
| ▲ | jasonlotito an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads. I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable. |
| |
| ▲ | kdkdkejdjwj an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This would destroy YouTuber culture AND rid us of ads on there. This is my own personal heaven. Nirvana. Eden. Promised Land. Paradise. Let’s freaking do it. | |
| ▲ | layer8 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | More importantly, it would lead to more “product placement” and other underhanded product/brand promotions. And the real annoyance with YouTube Premium is that the UI is still full of engagement dark patterns. | | |
| ▲ | RugnirViking an hour ago | parent [-] | | no it wouldn't, such things are straight up illegal in most places? You have to clearly disclose ads + have clear distinction between ad content and rest of content. A bunch of youtubers have gotten in trouble for this? |
|
| |
| ▲ | pbasista 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I cancelled my YouTube Premium plan because of ads. That would make a great title for a write-up of your experience. | |
| ▲ | loloquwowndueo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Pro tip. Ublock origin gets you that mostly ad-free experience you were hoping for. Donate the money you save from the YouTube premium sub to ublock origin instead. | | |
| ▲ | dormento 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also, SponsorBlock. Can't recommend it enough. It even works on """smart""" TVs if you're controlling youtube from your phone. | | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | uBlock Origin + SponsorBlock is the only way YouTube is even remotely watchable these days. Even still, it's not really worth it. I frequently find it better to spend my time doing anything else. | |
| ▲ | piltdownman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is there a viable solution for YouTube on a Google TV nowadays? They've started doing 60 second ads which are absolutely egregious. | | |
| |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sadly they don't accept donations, but send it to your favorite channel's Patreon or similar. | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Thanks! It's great on Mac/PC but sadly it doesn't work on iPhone, Android TV and Apple TV. I have solutions for those now too. | | |
| |
| ▲ | sbarre 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control. Are you suggesting that the burden should be on channel owners to upload variations of their videos that don't include sponsor blocks? That's a bit onerous. My commercial agreement is with YouTube, not with the video creator. If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels? YT Premium does provide the "skip ahead" functionality that almost always jumps over sponsor blocks. I will say I've been a YT Premium subscriber for years and I've never seen any ads for other Google services in my feed, and I don't get advert emails either. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > I mean, the stuff that's in the video is not really under Google's control. It is completely within Google's control. They have a hundred pages of terms of services, dictating everything the content creators may and may not do and say, down to individual words, symbols, and opinions. If Google wanted to, they could tell content creators to stop adding sponsorships. I understand you'd make less money. > If you don't like ads from creators, don't watch those channels? I stopped paying YouTube and I use SponsorBlock now. You're not entitled to my time or attention or money. The problem is ultimately that Google advertises an ad free experience, which it's not. I'd be willing to pay for an ad free experience. | |
| ▲ | cwillu 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If google can't provide an ad-free product, they shouldn't be selling an ad-free product. | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | All creators that are on Nebula already upload sponsor-free versions there. | | |
| ▲ | whatevaa an hour ago | parent [-] | | Nebula is mostly irrelevant. Even Nebulas creators wouldn't survive without youtube revenue. | | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym a minute ago | parent [-] | | Maybe so, the point is there is a non-zero number of creators who already do sbarre thinks is too onerous. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | websap 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'd pay $20 / month for a Youtube subscription with no ads or sponsored content. Unfortunately even with sideloading on iOS there's no alternative live youtube vanced. | |
| ▲ | jasonlotito an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | And then on the flip side you have people who won't blink an eye with Apple doing it. Shame, really. | |
| ▲ | redanddead an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What sucks is it’s never enough It always gets more expensive for a lesser enshittified version, removed/fucked with features to keep a bloated product team employed | |
| ▲ | nephihaha 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Sponsorship within videos at least gives money to the uploader. YouTube has forced that by demonetising videos or paying peanuts. | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | YouTube Premium now has integrated sponsor block. At least that's something. And any ads underneath a video is at least not shown in the Roku YouTube player, nor are ad overlays as far as I know, since I've never seen one. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | It helps but I understand that it's not automatic. Is that correct? If so it significantly undermines the functionality. SponesorBlock automatically removes ads. Meaning I don't have to scramble to open my phone or find the remote every time I don't want to hear/see an ad. That opt-out UX likely means most people ultimately watch the sponsored content. It could be that this is a phased approach so as not to anger their creators too much. | | |
| ▲ | carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | For me personally it is as easy as pressing one button on the remote. But I don't put on videos in the background very often. Worth noting is that there are thousands of high quality YouTube channels without any sponsored content. So those are effectively completely ad free with Premium. |
|
| |
| ▲ | natebc an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | ipaddr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's like complaining you purchased netflix subscriptiomn without ads and saw a product placement ad in a movie. I guess you want netflix to not show the movie, start cutting up the movie or ask that the movie be remade without any products. | | |
| ▲ | lucaspm98 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | YouTube sponsor segments are not subtle “place a Coke can facing the camera” integrations. They are dedicated ad segments with scripted (typically by the advertiser) promotions, often entirely unrelated to the video or channel. To the end user they are indistinguishable from other video ads on the platform except the ad read is often (not always) done by the creator. I don’t have hard data on the ratio but it’s not uncommon for a 10 minute video to have 1-2 minutes of full-interrupt ad segments embedded in the video. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | nonethewiser 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? You are implying something false. That he’s suggesting thats not an ad. Hes not suggesting that at all. What he’s suggesting is that that’s very different from Disney gating or interspersing movies with ads. Which it is. |
|
| ▲ | jmathai 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’ve been a paying customer of Dropbox’s consumer plan for over a decade. Each time I visit their website I am greeted with a full page modal ad asking me to upgrade to a different plan I have no use for. I’ve dismissed it every time. I don’t mind being shown that ad once. But it bothers me that they don’t care enough about my experience using their product to provide a “never show this again” option. Or just use some metrics to know that if I dismiss it 50 times then maybe I’m not interested. |
| |
| ▲ | Gareth321 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a bigger problem than it may appear. The business lifecycle is well understood, whereby a company innovates, expands, and then when it has a sufficiently large customer base, it monetises. I.e. it enshitifies its products - making them more expensive over time relative to the value. This process is death by a thousand cuts. A PM might see that having the modal you hate show every time you load the site increases conversion by 3%. That's $1M ARR you just made the company! Wow! You get a bonus and a promotion! The problem is you erode customer sentiment by some undefined unit. Many people think NPS measures this, but it doesn't. That measures how many people love and hate the product. It omits the vast majority of people in the middle. They just add it to the increasing list of annoyances until one day there are so many annoyances that they leave. At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing. It was a concerted effort over years to squeeze every cent out of the user at minimum cost. | | |
| ▲ | slyzmud 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > At that time it's very difficult for the company to understand why the user churned. It wasn't any one thing. It's very easy to know for people inside the company who actually care about the product and for their clients. It is really hard for directors and VP that anything they understand are numbers. If I say "hey this modal/pop up is making customers angry" they are going to ask how much they care (is there even an unit for that?) and how much revenue is lost. The only way for them to handle a project is creating a goal for next Q and assigning people, when in most cases what you need is actually the opposite. The problem is not that no one knows how to fix it, the problem is that managers organize around big problems and become useless at improving the small things or details. They become blind. It happened to me 100 times. They do not want things to be fixed unless there's a clear revenue increase, which is stupid. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker an hour ago | parent [-] | | The concept is called "goodwill" and it can be recognized in the balance sheet. |
|
| |
| ▲ | avhception 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Do you want to upgrade now or later? Will you upgrade now or do I need to nag you to death? | |
| ▲ | sbarre 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | dijit 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I get super bent out of shape when Apple TV+ advertises shows before the one I am trying to watch; even sometimes advertising the show that I am trying to watch itself and spoiling things. I have actually cancelled my subscription because of this. |
| |
| ▲ | k2enemy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've talked to Apple support about this. Their website says... Apple Originals are always commercial-free.
But you are forced to watch ads for other shows before viewing an Apple original. The support person said that because the ads are before the show you are trying to watch, that the show itself is indeed commercial-free. Language lawyering at its finest. | |
| ▲ | smelendez 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah, I actually canceled Netflix when they started making it impossible to look at the available shows without seeing previews of each of them. I am trying to leisurely decide what I want to watch, not have 15 different actors scream catchphrases at me. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | etothet 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree. I noticed recently an ad directly inside of 1Password. I’ve paid for a 1Password subscription since 2013, and have had a family plan for many years. I know the company changed hands several years back after AgileBits sold to VC, but this type of disrespect caused me to cancel my membership. There are plenty of alternatives that haven’t turned their focus to the “Enterprise” and aren’t trying to extract as much money as possible from their paying customers. |
| |
| ▲ | isaacaggrey 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What would you say is comparable experience wise to 1Password? I’ve found particularly the 1Password Family plan there’s not really a good alternative of rolling with KeepassX, Bitwarden, etc. The answer could be nothing and I still respect the choice to speak with your wallet. | | |
| ▲ | Gareth321 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bitwarden, while not quite as polished, works well. If you have your own server at home you can even self-host, which I do. It's an open source server side app called Vaultwarden [https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden] which connects to the Bitwarden app. I think the iCloud password manager also works pretty well, provided you're using Apple products. | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The closest I've found is Bitwarden, but even that isn't quite as good as 1Password. | |
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you don't need to share passwords between people (other than manually), Firefox Sync is perfect. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | semiquaver 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I grew up with the Disney channel on cable as a kid in the 90s. Disney channel at that time was ad-free except for cross-promotions for other Disney channel shows, most of which I (as a kid who liked the Disney channel) wanted to know more about. I have HBO Now/max/go/whatever and before most shows there’s a skippable promo for HBO stuff. So yeah, I don’t think this is new and Disney+ as it is now is way more ad-free than either of those, so I’m not surprised they are trying to nudge the status quo back to a historical equilibrium; it’s just what these companies do I’ll always pay more to see fewer ads. My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up watching linear TV in the 90s and I’m going to keep it that way. If Disney+ gets in the way of that I’ll stop paying them and stop using their service, easy as that. |
| |
| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Anyone that doesn't see the obvious play here probably wasn't alive when cable was the "ad free" tv option. These media companies cannot help themselves. Advert money is very tantalizing and they'll always want to find ways to sneak it in whenever and wherever they can. | |
| ▲ | alt227 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > My kids see far, far, far fewer ads than I and my peers did growing up But now these are targeted ads based on browsing data for ad profiles linked to your IP and devices. IMO just a few of these are far worse than the general run of commercials we used to have on TV. Corporations obviously think so too otherwise we would still have that. | |
| ▲ | thesuitonym 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I remember those days, and when Cartoon Network was the same. I didn't mind it then because, like you, I found the promos were a great way to know what was on the channel at different times. Especially in the age before on-screen guides. But there are a few crucial differences between then and now: The ad spots were there to keep the timetables accurate, which is no longer necessary. They also served as a way to let you know what else was on the channel, which again is no longer necessary because that app opens to a menu of all available programming. And, now this is the important part, back then I wasn't specifically paying for ad-free access. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is, my Jellyfin server is about to get much more use. |
|
|
| ▲ | mattbee 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The BBC in the UK makes a great play of having "no ads" but 6Music (their indie music station) has constant cross-promotions interrupting the music, sometimes for jarring TV murder shows. Cross-promotion is just as annoying as ads for insurance, I hate it! |
|
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | smelendez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, those kinds of ads are always aggravating to me because you’re not even making money by showing them to me. They feel like a display of power more than anything else. |
|
| ▲ | hdgvhicv 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes I see those, and adverts for other services (watch this program etc) as adverts. I don’t see adverts embedded in content as adverts. Be sure I’m watching the World Cup on bbc and see an advert on the players shirt doesn’t mean I want my money back, I’d rather we had no adverts, but it’s not unreasonable. |
|
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | serbuvlad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If I use service X I am MUCH less annoyed by an advertisement of subservice X.Y than I am by an advertisement of Nord VPN and Raid Shadow Legends. |
|
| ▲ | jasonlotito an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Does anyone not? People turned a blind eye to Apple advertising it's own services in it's products for years. I saw people defend here, on HN. So, while yes, it's advertising, Disney is far from the first to do this. I'm not saying it's right, only that people who claim to be opposed to ads are accepting of the type of ads we are discussing. > if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me? I'm assuming they aren't showing you ads for the plan you are on. |
|
| ▲ | sandworm101 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An add, but no more than catching a glimps of a restaurant long after one has ordered. When standing in a shop it is normal to see prices for other products on offer. |
|
| ▲ | bena 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One of the most egregious examples of this that's happened to me was with the DVD set of the second or third season of Mad Men. One of the unskippable pre-menu ads was for the next season. And I didn't know what to say. Either I like the series and I'm going to buy the next season or I don't and I won't. |
|
| ▲ | jghn 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I may be an outlier but I don't really mind being shown a relatively short ad before watching something. I'm almost never really paying attention yet anyways. Like yes, I'd prefer it not to exist but it doesn't cause me to get into a fit of rage. But ads in the middle of something I'm watching? Fuck right off with that. |