- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
YouTube’s plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers::People are installing and uninstalling ad blockers in record high numbers as a result of YouTube’s anti-ad blocking efforts.
You must log in or register to comment.
I used to use AdBlock Plus. I like it specifically because of the Acceptable Ads policy where it allows through ads that are unobtrusive. Because I believe in supporting sites that want to fund themselves, as long as they do it in a way that isn’t obnoxious.
But unfortunately ABP hasn’t gotten around YouTube’s new adblock-wall. So I’ve switched to uBlock Origin in the meantime. Which unfortunately doesn’t do acceptable ads. So well done Google, you’ve now forced me into a position where I’m blocking more ads than I was before. Very smart.
I whitelist sites I support on UB. Unless that sites gets obtrusive then I block it entirely.
I stopped supporting Google the moment they forgot “don’t be evil.”
What’s the point of whitelisting sites you want to support? Unless you’re committing to engaging with ads and purchasing services from ads, you’re not helping them at all. The only way seeing an ad is beneficial is if you click on it, which tells the advertising company their ad is working and it’s worth their while to pay to have an ad on whatever site you’re browsing…
The only way seeing an ad is beneficial is if you click on it
This is not really true anymore, though it once was. Most web ads are served on a “cost per impression” basis, not “cost per click”. Even classic AdSense is moving to CPM rather than CPC, and Google AdX (which serves big brand ads) already was, as with the old DoubleClick.
TIL, interesting, thank you for explaining!
The impressions of the ads helps, though. If the ad isn’t even shown, there’s not even the possibility of the impression or the engagement.
That said, there is only one site on all of the internet that I’ve decided to whitelist and that is only because I trust the site’s developers not to sell out and allow invasive ads.
What you’re describing is Cost Per Click. While still in use with some advertisers, most have shifted towards Cost Per Impression (CPM). CPM has a much lower cost per impression, (typically paid per thousand impressions) but it usually balances out because you’re not wholly reliant on clicks to generate revenue. If only 1/1000 people actually click the ad to begin with, then the cost will be the same.
The benefit to CPM is that you’re able to spread your advertising much farther, since you’re able to essentially purchase a thousand ad slots at a time, regardless of how many clicks they receive. And sites prefer it because it allows them to focus on site traffic, rather than focusing on driving users towards ads.
Of course the only people it doesn’t benefit is the end consumer because instead of trying to get you to click one ad they want you to see 1000.
News to me. Good to know, thanks for explaining!
Don’t you have to click an ad to actually support a website like that? Did you ever click? I wouldn’t, but maybe they pay for impressions as well
No, ads are usually paid per thousand impressions.
In theory an ad blocker could retrieve the ads in the background and simply not display them… I’m not sure any actually do currently, but if advertisers are silly enough to pay simply through network traffic it’s an option.
There’s a Firefox addon that clicks all of the ads in the background in an attempt to pollute the info pool on what you actually want and also to cost people the click on their ad campaign
Can anyone please link it? Seems wild, but interesting…
That’s perfectly evil in a way! Mind if I ask you what is the extension’s name?
idm that until it clicks some scam ad
