this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
344 points (86.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54424 readers
1128 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Seriously this was very surprising. I've been experimenting with GrayJay since it was announced and I largely think it's a pretty sweet app. I know there are concerns over how it isn't "true open source" but it's a hell of a lot more open than ReVanced. Plus, I like the general design and philosophy of the app.

I updated the YouTube backend recently and to my surprise and delight they had added support for SponsorBlock. However, when I went to enable it, it warned me "turning this on harms creators" and made me click a box before I could continue.

Bruh, you're literally an ad-blocking YouTube frontend. What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to be facilitating ad-blocking and then at the same time shame the end-user for using an extension which simply automates seeking ahead in videos. Are you seriously gonna tell me that even without Sponsorblock, if I skip ahead past the sponsored ad read in a video, that I'm "harming the creator"?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com 140 points 11 months ago (12 children)

I believe this is because sponsor segments are like traditional TV ads. They don't use trackers, they are not targeted and they respect your privacy.

[–] xep@kbin.social 100 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

They don’t use trackers, they are not targeted and they respect your privacy.

In that case it won't matter to anyone that I skipped them.

[–] crunchpaste@lemmy.dbzer0.com 61 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

As I've mentioned in another thread, I believe YouTube provides analytics on this (hence the "most replayed" parts for some videos), and I'm certain I've seen some creators mention sposors requiring that information before a deal is made. So it may really hurt some small youtubers that can't rely on merchandise sales.

That said, I personally use sponsorblock as I don't feel like wasting my life on nordvpn ads, but I have to admit sponsor segments are a whole lot better than regular YouTube ads.

Edit: And as I far as I know they pay much better than regular ads.

[–] infectoid@lemmy.world 28 points 11 months ago (3 children)

I manually skip all sponsored segments except for the Internet Historian ones.

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.de 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] infectoid@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Pretty much. I watch all the NordVPN Man ads and don’t even sign up for a 12 month discount and the first month free. I’m basically a criminal.

Also Mullvad FTW.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

They don’t use trackers,

Well, they can see whether you watched them or not. So technically still tracked. At least in the official youtube app.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Kir@feddit.it 21 points 11 months ago (13 children)

They don't respect my attention and time, thought

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 26 points 11 months ago (5 children)

I mean, the person making the video you are watching respected your time to the point they put in 10-100x the amount of time it takes you to watch that video to make it.

And the sponsor ad is how they afford said time commitment.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Player2@sopuli.xyz 119 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Before getting Sponsorblock, I would always manually skip forward past the integrated advertisements. This tool does the exact same thing but faster and more convenient for me. My conscience is unaffected

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Precisely! The sponsors have to be aware that some subset of the audiences watching the sponsorees will skip ahead anyway. They can't seriously believe that they are entitled to our attention.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org 69 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Shame is an artificial construct that I am choosing not to opt into. Thanks for letting us know that sponsorblock is in, I'm turning it on now.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago

Yeah I agree, I just thought it was funny... Not "haha funny" but a bit jarring

[–] DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca 10 points 11 months ago

Shame is a mismatch between ego and ego-ideal, whereas guilt is a mismatch between ego and super-ego. The ego-ideal in shame does depend on social norms. But that is by no means “artificial”.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Seems to me an overreaction to complain about a single checkbox suggesting that people who make YouTube videos make actual money from sponsorships where ads get them jack shit. They added Sponsorblock but just have a one-time warning, is that really big of a deal? It's informational, and if you don't like it, ignore it and move on with your day.

If they were more insistent like a popup every time you used it I could see getting upset about it.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's not a big deal, just something I thought was odd. I'm not gonna claim checking a box is ruining my life or anything.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago

Yeah. I use NewPipe myself just to be able to enjoy videos with my screen off, that Youtube has locked behind a subscription for no good reason.

That said Rossman is someone who sticks to his principles and the FUTO group is an extension of those principles. At heart he's a New York businessman so he knows that people need money to live, but he also isn't trying to stop people to do what they like with tech that they supposedly have purchased.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

In case anyone is wondering, here is the "shaming" that is done in the app. (images attached)

You're not being shamed anywhere in this text. You are being presented factual information. Any shame that you feel as a result of being faced with information is pretty much entirely on you.

I have no qualms turning on sponsorblock and adblockers, I support the creators that I enjoy via other means.

If you are taking issue with the "don't freeload" then I guess you perhaps feel bad being told that you're freeloading? I won't pretend to know what's going on in your own brain. But you're posting this in a piracy community so I don't imagine it should be any surprise to you that you're freeloading, lol. If ye choose to sail the seas, do it with pride, me hearty. And support small businesses, yarr.

image 1 image 2

[–] RickyRigatoni@lemmy.ml 16 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Sponsorblock does not harm creators. Youtube has no method of detecting when a sponsored segment is skipped, so the creator still gets their sponsorship money. A person who is using sponsorblock is extremely unlikely to use the sponsored products even if they did watch the ad, so the creator isn't losing out on any affiliate money either.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 24 points 11 months ago (8 children)

YouTube absolutely can see which parts of videos people are actually engaging with. So can creators. And sponsors can request engagement metrics as part of their sponsorship deals.

Advertisers care about impressions and engagement. A person simply watching a sponsored segment is an impression. If people's impression metrics for sponsored segments start dropping, they become less attractive to sponsors as they knew they're going to get fewer impressions as part of the deal.

It may, or may not, be a very small impact but it is an impact nonetheless.

If nobody is watching sponsored segments (which we've established: YouTube itsself, creators, and sponsors can track) then companies don't have any incentive to sponsor videos, and creators no longer get revenue from sponsorships. Sure, this is a very end of the line example, because there's always going to be someone who doesn't have sponsorblock installed and can't be bothered to skip the segment.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Just FYI for all the people who keep repeating this ad-nauseam it doesn't apply to third party apps like Newpipe and grayjay which DO NOT send analytics data. If anyone wants to make arguments against sponsorblock they also can't support apps and front-ends which strip the Analytics from the video because without them you add no watch time or metrics, so it's a hypocritical argument.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ashtefere@lemmy.world 30 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I block all advertising myself, but sponsors I think are ok. The creator can control who they sponsor with, they can write a funny ad skit that is entertaining (the best ones I have seen are the ones by squishy boi) and the creator gets paid directly without fucking us with an algorithm.

I'm happy to watch those kinds of ads as I know the creator is getting paid from them, and e.g. YouTube isn't taking a cut.

[–] venji10@feddit.de 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

But scammy sponsors are very common. Most of the promoted products are just trash because the company behind them puts way too much money in advertisement.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 10 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How dare you besmirch Shadow Raid Legends VPN like that!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 11 months ago (10 children)

Yes but you watching the ad doesn't make money for the creator.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works 22 points 11 months ago

Eh, at least they added support for it. Good for them. Still looking at this app with some skepticism but so far seems to be doing what it sets out to do.

[–] Tischkante@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Real sponsors pay up front, or only add an additional bonus for affiliate link sales, if a creator accepts a deal on affiliate link money only, it's their own fault. So if you always fast forward through sponsors and don't care, you might as well enable it to save the bandwidth and power.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] neeeeDanke@feddit.de 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

I was kind of dissapointed when I read the new pipe team was having an issue with sponsor block, but tbh their reasoning makes a lot of sense:

https://newpipe.net/blog/pinned/newpipe-and-online-advertising/

And even thought I am using the sponsor block fork now I only skip the non-music part in music videos, because I do agree that creators have to make money somehow. And while I don't love ads most of the time (sometimes they are really well made) my main issue with ads on Youtube/the wider Internet is how intrusive they are and them not respecting my privacy.

[–] Draconic_NEO@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well they won't make any money off you watching them on NewPipe because the way it parses videos doesn't register views or watched timestamps, the things that sponsors take into account when paying creators.

It's why their argument is garbage, because they designed NewPipe the way they did for the purpose of privacy, which also defeats any method of making money through analytics yet they think Sponsorblock in this case stops them from making money, as if they could make money off NewPipe users at all in the first place.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] desmosthenes@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

damn y’all get all the cool shit on android :(

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 1Fuji2Taka3Nasubi@lemmy.zip 17 points 11 months ago (6 children)

He’s still bitter someone Sponsorblocked his cat segment :-)

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Merwyn@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago (7 children)

I may be wrong but from what I've heard from some "small" content creator on YouTube the money from the sponsored talks in their video is a much bigger part of their income than money from youtube coming from the YouTube-selected ads that play before/during the video.

Also, this part do not give any money to YouTube and do not use/collect any data on you.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] verysoft@kbin.social 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

i keep sponsorblock on but i pretty much have it set on manual skip by default. i mostly use it for critical role (whom i also subscribe to on twitch) shows to skip the intermission or for twitch vods on youtube to skip the beginning and after parts where it's just the streamer talking to chat.

but i also don't understand how skipping in video sponsored segments loses them money like it's not a youtube thing it's a creator thing like television adverts. how would they know if it's been skipped wouldn't they already get the money to do the sponsorship before the video is posted?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] anothermember@beehaw.org 15 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Blocking YouTube's advertising is necessary for privacy, and it punishes YouTube for their bad business practices.

But sponsors aren't underhanded like that and I feel like they're the type of thing we should really be promoting as an alternative to privacy invading ads, and hopefully a way for creators to move off of YouTube eventually.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A lot of sponsors are very exploitative companies in their own right, and I don't owe them my time or attention.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 11 months ago

I know there are concerns over how it isn't "true open source" but it's a hell of a lot more open than ReVanced.

For me, terms and definitions are very important. Just like right to repair is often misrepresented to the detriment of consumers, it's important to only talk about open source if the license actually respects your freedom [1].

Open source has a lot of positive connotations and calling some project open source while only being source available feels like taking advantage of it.

It's similar to how large corporations talking about being eco friendly with their packaging whilst making the actual devices as hard to repair as possible.

You're right, the ReVanced project is open source, but the resulting app is not, since it's modifying the official YouTube app.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd/

[–] stifle867@programming.dev 12 points 11 months ago (10 children)

I'm confused about your stance on ReVanced. It's about as open-source as you can get https://github.com/revanced/revanced-patches

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Bruh, you’re literally an ad-blocking YouTube frontend. What kind of mental gymnastics does it take to be facilitating ad-blocking and then at the same time shame the end-user for using an extension which simply automates seeking ahead in videos.

+1

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›