Thread

1. semiquaver · 1789988297 · focus · HN ↗

   Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. 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’”

   I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.

   1. DonsDiscountGas · 1789992621 · focus · HN ↗

      > 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?

      1. Gareth321 · 1789993627 · focus · HN ↗

         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.

         1. ApolloFortyNine · 1789996469 · focus · HN ↗

            >* 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.

            1. Gareth321 · 1789997194 · focus · HN ↗

               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.

               1. nephihaha · 1789998317 · focus · HN ↗

                  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.

                  1. choo-t · 1789999249 · focus · HN ↗

                     Wikipedia predates Youtube by five years.

                     Unpaid cooperation of human to generate knowledge or entertainment predates YouTube by tens of thousands years.

                     1. nephihaha · 1790009644 · focus · HN ↗

                        YouTube is part of Alphabet, one of the biggest corporations in the world. It can easily afford to pay people. It isn't co-operation, it's a corporation which takes the work of other people and makes lots of money off them, without paying them properly (or at all in many cases). Wikipedia's content is used by LLMs and other such outlets who also profit off unpaid labour.

                        It is a basic right of people to be able to afford to live. It's easy to work for free when you have family money but you cannot support yourself when you don't.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.