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. jdb9001 · 1789997788 · focus · HN ↗

                  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.

                  1. Gareth321 · 1789999509 · focus · HN ↗

                     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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.