zlacker

Given how full of crap content and intrusive ads YouTube is these days, I actually kinda miss tv from back then. About the only benefits at this point are time shifting and pause/rewind.

>>loloqu+(OP)
I mean you realize there were many more ads per hour on TV though right? What makes the youtube ones more intrusive?

>>loloqu+(OP)
With real TV and a DVR you haven't had to see a single commercial in the last 25 years if you didn't want to.

We don't talk enough about how streaming has forced us into a much worse experience with ads that are unskippable, privacy-invading, and now I hear they're being dynamically inserted into programming mid-scene.

>>loloqu+(OP)
I've long since concluded that YouTube's ads are merely a way of persuading me to upgrade to Premium. Given that they actually seem to be pretty good at recommending content to me I am mystified by why the ad selection is so awful.

>>loloqu+(OP)
It's still trivial to block these though with a combination of uBlock Origin and Sponsorblock. Despite Google's ongoing efforts to make this impossible.

>>arethu+L1
1. If the ad selection is too good, people will fall into the uncanny valley. They have to make it terrible enough to maintain user confidence.

2, They may not have anything better to select from. Quickly start/stop the ads a few times and it will usually (but not always) give up on showing any ad at all, which suggests to me that the available ad pool at that point in time is being exhausted.

>>arethu+L1
I got a f'n Trump asking for money ad on YT last night. The algorithm should know better than to serve me something like that.

>>loloqu+(OP)
have you forgotten how bad commercials were back then, and still are?

I haven't watched TV in years and years and years, because of the ads. I have a YouTube premium subscription and I am not ever going to watch broadcast or cable tv again. ever.

>>UncleO+g5
If the ads are indeed just a way to push for subscriptions and you are upset or annoyed by a particular add, the algorithm is perfectly doing its job.

>>UncleO+g5
But doesn't it make sense to pay for targeted political ads towards people opposed to you? The algorithm allows advertisers to do targeted advertising, and you were targeted, the subtle implication that targeted advertising would only show you "what you want to see" was intentional and misleading to get people on board with their attention being sold to the highest bidder.

>>naikro+B5
> have you forgotten how bad commercials were back then

Most weren't 'bad', just noise.

Sure there were some cringy ones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts0XG6qDIco

But some were GREAT!

-- Remember 'CH-ch-ch Chia Pet!' ?? ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzY7qQFij_M

-- How's about local commercials, like in Philadelphia: "Krass Brothers - Store of the Stars!!" ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5R4rNxSWFw

>>UncleO+g5
Because you are already a donor?

>>add-su+v1
We talked about it plenty back when the legacy media companies were refusing to move online. "The ad spend isn't nearly a high online." they would say, with "Yeah, but people actually watch the ads online. Give it a few minutes." in response.

At some points topics become stale.

>>Baljhi+lg
By “bad” I mean “commercials exist and are shown on TV”.

I don’t ever want to see a commercial. I have never been influenced by one. I never will be unless they change dramatically. There is no sales pitch that does not immediately make me dislike the salesperson.

“You don’t deserve your money as much as I do.” That’s all a commercial is. “We want your money so here is some quick audio and maybe video designed to convince you to give your money to us, in exchange for something less valuable than the amount you paid.”

>>arethu+L1
The ad placements aren't tailored to you. They're tailored to the advertiser's wishes.