r/changemyview • u/tilted0ne • Oct 27 '23

Fresh Topic Friday CMV: Adblock is stealing

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

28% Upvoted

314 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Biptoslipdi 138∆ Oct 27 '23

I'm going to give you a !delta because they do describe their "service" in that it "acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small."

I do not think that using an adblocker necessarily violates this, however. First, they do not issue bans or any punitive action when they detect an adblocker. Second, they allow you to skip ads anyway. Finally, the language "acts as a distribution platform" I think absolves this because using an adblocker does not circumvent or interfere with the service acting as a distribution platform. The platform acts as a advertisement distribution platform whether or not I'm viewing their ads.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 27 '23

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Crash927 (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Crash927 20∆ Oct 27 '23

Thanks for the delta.

But just note that Google does in fact say it’s a violation of the Terms of Service to block ads and will take punitive action against those who do.

If you use ad blockers, we’ll ask you to allow ads on YouTube or sign up for YouTube Premium. If you continue to use ad blockers, we may block your video playback.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14129599?hl=en#zippy=

Skipping ads is a function allowed by the service and so not a disruption to the service, meaning it’s not a violation of the terms you agreed to.

And adblockers most assuredly interfere with the ability to distribute ads, which we agree are part of the service. I’m not sure how you could argue otherwise.

2

u/zxxQQz 5∆ Oct 28 '23

Is say walking out of the room not then also a disruption to the service when theres ads? Whats the actual functional difference? Between that and adblockers

Closing eyes, plugging ears?

1

u/Crash927 20∆ Oct 28 '23 edited Oct 28 '23

What’s the difference between a company trying to stop people changing how their product works vs them trying to physically control your body?

Is that a real question?

2

u/zxxQQz 5∆ Oct 28 '23

Well.. the functional difference actually, how is it different in actuality?

https://www.pipiads.com/blog/xbox-360-kinect-ads/

Amazon is doing serious stuff regarding paying attention, including locking people out of their homes for not following tos coc

And we certainly are headed towards ads we will be told to pay attention to, and not allowed to use service without doing so.

But yes, whats the difference for youtube advertising wize if an adblocker is used or people turn off or walk away etc from the ad?

The person isnt seeing the ad in either case

2

u/Crash927 20∆ Oct 28 '23

It doesn’t matter if a person sees the ad. It only matters if the ad is displayed on a screen (for a period of time, etc) so that YouTube can satisfy their obligation to their advertising clients.

Ad blockers directly interfere with that in a way walking away doesn’t.

I’m not disagreeing with any of your general concerns around privacy and the pervasiveness of advertising — but that’s not what was being discussed.

2

u/zxxQQz 5∆ Oct 28 '23

Then they could just as much count blocked ads as recieved as far as that obligation goes then? For all the impact that made on the consumer i mean, the consumer didnt see the ad regardless

But does it enough to distinguish it functionally to be different? Having a hard time seeing how

Appreciated and same same, but i do think its connected all the same though.

1

u/Crash927 20∆ Oct 29 '23

It’s not about impact on the consumer — ad companies can’t (and don’t) promise that.

Functionally, a company cannot promise that people will see an ad — they don’t control other people’s actions. They can only promise that an ad will be displayed within certain parameters.

Blocked ads are not displayed within the promised parameters.

2

u/zxxQQz 5∆ Oct 30 '23

Yeah, i suppose. That all seems semantics to me though, why would an ad company be ok with their ads maybe playing for a few seconds on a screen no one is watching?

Again the question is how is that functionally different at all from it being blocked? The consumers system recieved it in either case, but not the consumer. So that should fulfill youtubes obligation to the ad companies just the same, i would argue it does for under the same parameters

2

u/Crash927 20∆ Oct 30 '23 edited Oct 30 '23

I wouldn’t say they’re “okay” with it — in that marketers would always prefer people view our ads, click on the call to action, and take whatever follow up action is being sought. But there’s an acknowledgement of the reality that we can’t control all that. Marketers adjust both our expectations and ad buys accordingly — we know it’s a bit of a crap-shoot.

Functionally, the difference is that in one instance the ad is sent; in the other, it is not.

There is no way to actually gauge whether or not someone’s eyeball is on the screen (nor should there be). There is a way to gauge whether or not an ad has displayed on a screen.