YouTube ads

Why haven't they figured out a way round adblockers yet? Can't they just encode the ad within the normal video stream or host the ad on the YouTube domain or what?

Attached: Youtube-adverts-1.jpg (827x608, 128K)

Encode the ad in the video? Then people will skip it using L. Have it separate or marked so they can disable skipping? People will make a blocker addon.

Most of their viewers haven't figured out how to adblock or are using apps that won't allow it anyway and it's not worth the effort to deal with the rest.

they know that it's an endless cat and mouse chase when you try to defeat adblockers.

there already is a way past it, have the people themselves shill the shit
see: linus tech tips

then people press L / double tap the right half of the screen when the shill part comes on

It's beneficial to let the ad blockers block ads because they are the type of people who bring click through rate down. This way they don't affect the rate. It makes it easier for Google/YouTube etc to fluff numbers and boast of effectiveness to ad buyers.

Because like literally only 5% of people use adblockers. It's not worth the effort and bad press.

It's not fluffing cause people who use adblockers are actually not receptive to ads. It's a win win for everybody.

Think about what you've just said.

> "It's not reason X because its actually X"
t.Brainlet

fluffing implies that it's not genuine.

He's said basically that people who use an ad blocker probably aren't the type who is going to click an ad if you get it through, so there isn't much point.

Most people use phones so they rarely have any blocker

NewPipe. Youtube Vanced.

that's what the person he was responding to said, not the person you've quoted.

For example take the entire set of people who watch a video, and called that Set X, adblockers are set Y and non-adblockers are set Z.

Total effectiveness of an ad would be accurately represented by the CTR of showing the ad to Set X. Instead, YouTube represents the CTR as a metric only pertaining to set Y, and by not circumventing ad-blockers the % of people watching and clicking ads is only represented as a value that contains a subset of the actual audience. This number is artificial in regards to actual how effective an advert would be, its a fluffed number.

>YouTube represents the CTR as a metric only pertaining to set Y,
Set Z sorry

Twitch at one point tried doing this and they just stopped.

If only 5% of people used adblockers the entire journalism industry and other assorted faggots wouldn't be railing so hard against it.

You can mix ads into videos but then people will just skip over them with the progress bar. Hell the comments will probably just give a direct link to the start of the actual video

youtube is a private company so they could just block you from viewing any widous unless you paid if the wanted

They could, but then they would start hemorrhaging users.

The news "industry" only made money when there was a very small supply. The demand for news is just not that high and people usually just want to read two sentences and close the tab anyways.

>Most people

The real problem for the news media is people share articles through Facebook/whatever and then most just read the headline and snippet without actually clicking into the article.

Because only websites that have anti-adblocker that don't have anti-anti-adblocker are literally whos.

Any website that is at least remotely popular and added an anti-adblocker script almost instantly gets a workaround.

not very likely, they are already losing viewers due to all the censorship and banning of content creators. most of their remaining audience would probably leave it they made it a paid service. math could work, though, if say 5% paid a fee that's higher than the advertisement revenue from the 95% who won't pay and go elsewhere.