I wish uBlock Origin would incorporate AI features too. It could automatically detect brand names and product placement and blank it all out. Works on images and video. Augmented reality glasses with uBlock Origin would be life changing.
You know, with ads. That you pay to watch.
Paid, or ads. Paid with ads -> cancel immediately.
You can subsidize the cost of a full subscription by having ads.
I know that society at large is mostly hopeless, but here on HN we generally have the mental firepower to comprehend "It's a sliding payment scale from no ads to all ads"
Edit: You guys are welcome to be upset by this, but if you think it's wrong, please correct me. Ideally without using the one counter example of cable TV in the 90's. Monopolies bring bad behaviors.
Most (all?) streaming services offer an ad-free plan, and those are the most popular hybrid payment services by far.
Many (most?) streaming services advertise their own shows and other content ahead of other content you elect to watch even on ad free subs.
Hulu’s ad free subs have some shows that show unambiguous ads.
Prime and others muddy their interfaces with others’ “channels” and content that you can subscribe to through their service. They also show other content you can purchase or rent through them that aren’t part of your package. These things are included in search, viewing UI lists, and banner ads.
This is untrue in the US. There were ad supported cable TV channels before 1980. Most of the first cable TV channels were ad supported from the start or adopted advertising within the first few years of going on-air. For example, TBS, ESPN, and USA had ads from day one, with those launching in 1976, 1980, and 1977 respectively. Nickelodeon was ad-free at its launch in 1979 but adopted advertising in 1984.
And this also ignores that for decades before "cable" was just all the broadcast stations piped over coax as a paid service. That had ads, since those broadcast stations had ads. And even when cable channels did start appearing, most of the channels on the dial we're still these broadcast channels. So most content you were paying for had ads since day one.
There were ads from the start.
*Ads will be served in select live and linear content
I won't be engaging in any mental gymnastics where there is some redefinition of "no ads" to mean "some ads".
Youtube likely tolerates it because even with a 60% revenue share going go creators, often half of viewers pay nothing (no ad views or subscription), so sponsored segments can fill the gap for the creators.
Note that Youtube premium does include the ability to skip sponsored segments though.
I'm guessing you are complaining about something that you don't even have?
Nothing absurd with that claim at all.
If content creators can't live off of the ad revenue that YouTube offers, then that is another thing to lump the blame of at the feet of YouTube. They not only turn a blind eye to content creators ruining the service I pay for, YouTube is the one themselves who has created the conditions in which the content creator feels the need to pursue external advertising.
There is obvioulsy enough advertising money in the world to support both YouTube and content creators, because that is exactly what is happening right now: advertisers are paying either YouTube or the content creator directly. For some reason, a lot of content creators can't make it by just working with YouTube, despite there being enough advertiser demand for it. That tells me that YouTube is being stingy.
[0] Which, BTW, many content creators are not properly marking up their videos to allow for the skip feature to work.
Second, you are capable of building a coherent argument, but left out that almost half of viewers don't pay. When you are a child, paying for things is frustrating and annoying, so the ones taking the money are bad. When you grow up, you realize that everything costs money to everyone, and taking money isn't really nefarious, and paying for what you consume is just honest. If you don't like the cost of something, you don't buy it. If you like the cost, you pay and it's yours.
Obviously you have passed that threshold of reasoning, so it might be worthwhile to rebalance your argument around the fact that almost half (30-50%) of viewers still feel entitled to free viewing of content. They don't boycott it, they still consume it, but they don't compensate. That leaves the honest ones to bear the cost of their consumption.