Freebird Games Community

Community (Misc.) => General => Debates/Serious Discussions => Topic started by: atommo on April 17, 2014, 03:43:29 AM

Title: AdBlock
Post by: atommo on April 17, 2014, 03:43:29 AM
For those of you not aware, (even though I'm guessing that many people on this forum do, but maybe I'm wrong) AdBlock, AdBlock Plus and AdBlock Edge are all different programs out there designed as an extension to web browsers like Firefox and Chrome to block adverts. Essentially, when you use a program like this, you no longer have to watch 30 second adverts on YouTube before you can actually watch content you want to watch. It also block other types of adverts, like some popups, and also banner adverts.

However; these programs have led to a fair bit of controversy on the internet, with some people getting angry and claiming that adverts are what make website income in some places. In particular, large YouTube channels tend to be large because the person/people behind it have dedicated themselves to that job. They also make an income off of their videos, which is the advert revenue.

Now, the other day I saw a few of these channels saying what they felt about AdBlock programs. I will link 2 of these:

Help Content Providers - Turn Off Adblock (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifBpjs36kFs#)

Dear AdBlock, Kiss My A$$! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnoE3064Ius#)

These give a basic picture of what the people on the other end feel about these sorts of things. I can understand that they may be angry, but I feel that it has come down to this because adverts have gotten so out of control (maybe exaggerating a little) that you can't seem to go two YouTube videos without some advert being crammed down your throat. The thing is; the anti-adblock people say that watching adverts brings free money. However, that is wrong. You are using up your time watching those adverts, and time is not something that you can get back. Once you've lost time, it's gone.

That is why I feel that websites/advertisers should come up with a more acceptable way of doing advertising. For example, advert banners are fine IMO, so long as they don't distract from what you want to do. Adverts that play random videos and don't seem to understand the meaning of "quiet" are ones that cause people to get programs like AdBlock. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people dislike those sort of adverts.

I guess the point where I got completely fed up of adverts was when YouTube first started forcing people to watch commercials. I was fine with the little advert box at the bottom that you could close, but they crossed the line when they forced adverts down your throat.

Finally, I don't see what the difference is between having an advert play and not watching it, than not have an advert play at all. It simply consumes bandwidth and patience. That is how I feel.

Also, AdBlock, AdBlock Plus and AdBlcok Edge are all made by different people, although they all originated from the first.

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on this.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: EgotisticalRaven on April 17, 2014, 04:22:39 AM
I personaly don't feel like there's wrong with advertisements on Youtube for the purpose of income. I don't like the ones you can skip, because I know I will skip them instead of waiting till they are finished, also the skipable ones are sometimes lengthy. I think it's good that the person is getting money (If they make good content), so that they can continue to do so. If an ad comes on I always mute it, I don't think that would do anything to stop them reciving money or whatnot.

If I like content, I'd do whatever I feel comfortable to do, so that they can earn money and get what they deserve. That's one reason I like to buy merchandise and themed items from TV shows or musicaians, and such.

I don't think the ads matter that much though. If I want to buy something, I don't need an advertisment to tell me so, it's good to inform you, but its persuasive powers are for the those with no real opnions. But that is a bit irrelevent to the discussion.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: ~ on April 17, 2014, 05:15:50 AM
If I like the content, I'll support the maker.

Adverts typically get in the way of the first bit.


Let's ask another question, do you like films more when they're aired on TV for free but with commercial breaks, or do you prefer the film when it's shown from start to finish without any breaks, say from a DVD?
For me, the commercials typically get in the way of fully enjoying the film.

So when it comes to adblock on youtube, I'd rather watch the content and, if the content is good, I'd support the maker.

Another question for the purposes of exploring different mediums, what if Kan released To the Moon for free but only under the condition that you have to watch some advert first? So let's say for a 4 minute youtube clip there is a 30 second advert - if To the Moon takes you 4 hours to read, you'd need to sit through a 30 minute kitchen infomercial at the start.

Personally, I think it'd detract from the content, I wouldn't be able to bring myself to like To The Moon as much as I did. I'd be unsatisfied and I wouldn't have parted with any of my pennies to support the developer directly either. I doubt Kan would be too happy with it either, though he would definitely have made a killing on the kitchen partnership!

For adverts on the general innerwebs, it depends on the format; I'll whitelist a website if it isn't too bad with its adverts. Text is fine, still images are fine, animated gifs are pushing it but have a funny 90s internet nostalgia to it. Flash ranges from okay to really freakin bad. But damn dude, anything that has plays videos/sounds or pops up must die.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Just Lance on April 17, 2014, 06:13:27 AM
The only thing I use is flashblock, because  don't really mind ads, but flashes kind of irk me.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 17, 2014, 10:53:03 AM
Well, I won't say I love the idea of people getting around ads that make me money on youtube, but then again I don't like being told what to do either. Depends on the content I suppose but since I do music, I give the option to my followers to support me directly by buying my albums, and that usually gives more revenue than what I'd get through youtube ads.
Then again there may be type of contents when you don't have that kind of "direct" support alternative. Though with things like Patreon that's kind being solved as well.

From a moral point of view (something I rarely discuss if it has no practical application but for the sake of conversation I'll make an exception) I'd say it IS kinda ungrateful of the viewer. It has nothing to do with whether you like the content or not, you're deciding you're gonna watch it for FREE and you can't even wait 5 seconds for an advert? A little entitlement going on here. If you decide the content was not worth your while, you can choose to avoid that channel forever, at absolutely no cost other than the 2 minutes of life "wasted" (you were on youtube to begin with, let's not pretend it pushed your life goals behind). Do people ask for refunds at movie theaters if they don't like the movie? I bet not.

But as I said I rarely discuss morals so ultimately I don't really give much of a f***, things are going to happen in the world whatever your morals are, the practical thing to do is adapt to them instead of whining about them.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Thunderbird on April 17, 2014, 11:59:07 AM
I don't mind the clips on youtube that much, so I don't have them blocked.
If it's not too long and not too much interruption in the video it's alright.

On other websites like one German streaming site, the advertisements are so excessive that it ruins the content for me, so I have those blocked.
Using Noscript, mainly for security reasons, but also to filter at least some of the advertisments.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Merlandese on April 17, 2014, 12:06:10 PM
Another question for the purposes of exploring different mediums, what if Kan released To the Moon for free but only under the condition that you have to watch some advert first? So let's say for a 4 minute youtube clip there is a 30 second advert - if To the Moon takes you 4 hours to read, you'd need to sit through a 30 minute kitchen infomercial at the start.

This is interesting because it's not such a far off hypothetical. A lot of people who came to love To the Moon and currently support it were brought in from Let's Plays (especially PewDiePie), and they all felt emotional resonance with it despite the fact that the format for To the Moon in a Let's Play is one interjected with commercials.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: atommo on April 17, 2014, 12:19:56 PM
This is interesting because it's not such a far off hypothetical. A lot of people who came to love To the Moon and currently support it were brought in from Let's Plays (especially PewDiePie), and they all felt emotional resonance with it despite the fact that the format for To the Moon in a Let's Play is one interjected with commercials.
I guess it's one thing playing a game and having your progress interrupted by adverts, than have someone else play a game so you personally don't have to worry about that sort of thing.

If you think of it like a football game; spectators get shown adverts throughout, but that doesn't mean the game stops as well. Therefore, it would not give the same level of frustration having an advert pop up in the middle of something important, since you wouldn't be the one playing the game.

I mean, could you imagine if football games had to be stopped while there were advert breaks? I'm pretty sure the players would get pretty angry.

I hope I'm making sense :reivsweat:

P.S. I also learnt about Freebird games through an LPer, called Cryaotic. He's an awesome guy.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 17, 2014, 01:28:21 PM
There are many webgame sites that make you sit through adverts before playing.

If the industry made it to the point where this format would be used for lengthier games like To The Moon (webgames are usually a few minutes of quick fun, and that's it) then I asume the game themselves would adapt to this by having  "resting" points in the story. A small arc is resolved, everything settles down and as you process all the info, the "commercial" would be on. Then the game resumes onto the next "chapter". It would definitely not work for every type of game.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: atommo on April 17, 2014, 02:34:59 PM
There are many webgame sites that make you sit through adverts before playing.

If the industry made it to the point where this format would be used for lengthier games like To The Moon (webgames are usually a few minutes of quick fun, and that's it) then I asume the game themselves would adapt to this by having  "resting" points in the story. A small arc is resolved, everything settles down and as you process all the info, the "commercial" would be on. Then the game resumes onto the next "chapter". It would definitely not work for every type of game.
That doesn't sound like a bad idea! I guess it still depends on how long you have to sit through adverts for though.

and you can't even wait 5 seconds for an advert?
Also just to point out some adverts are 30 seconds long and unskippable. This is quite ridiculous when you want to watch a video that may be shorter than the advert.

Also, there are cases of advertception where you may have to watch an advert to watch another advert, which is a little crazy imo :P
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Unimaginative Username on April 17, 2014, 04:20:36 PM
I don't mind adverts on Youtube since I can just skip them after five seconds. I try my luck with the F5 button if I get a 30 second unskippable advert and that usually works most of the time.

I feel like it's a bit ungrateful if you use adblocker on videos where clearly a lot of effort has gone into making a video - especially when it is the only source of income for the creator. However, having said that there are certain channels which seem to only have 30 second ads on them and I'd use it on those because that is just irritating. There are also other channels where the videos are short or purposely cut into smaller sizes to generate more revenue and in that case I would use adblocker myself if only I could be bothered to go and acquire it.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 17, 2014, 06:08:25 PM
Also just to point out some adverts are 30 seconds long and unskippable. This is quite ridiculous when you want to watch a video that may be shorter than the advert.

True, but those are very very rare. And videos less than 30 seconds are also very rare :P the point is, it's still a minor inconvenience for free entertainment. We watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time while paying for the monthly cable subscription and noone bats an eye. It's like on the internet everyone's entitled to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: atommo on April 17, 2014, 06:21:14 PM
True, but those are very very rare. And videos less than 30 seconds are also very rare :P the point is, it's still a minor inconvenience for free entertainment. We watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time while paying for the monthly cable subscription and noone bats an eye. It's like on the internet everyone's entitled to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.
[/quote]
Maybe. Then again, you can get around TV commercials too, by recording a program and skipping the commercial breaks when you get round to watching it later. You can't really do that on a video streaming service like YouTube.

I also wonder how they monitor how many people have seen adverts online. If I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure advertisers only tend to pay the advert host sites if people click on them. Maybe that's not the case with YouTube, but in many smaller sites I've seen, people tend to urge you to click on the adverts since that is what generates the revenue.

However, I have never clicked on a YouTube advert intentionally (this is before I had AdBlock), which is why I'm so curious about how they can tell whether you have seen an advert and not been interested, or whether you haven't seen an advert at all.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Thunderbird on April 17, 2014, 06:26:58 PM
We watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time while paying for the monthly cable subscription and noone bats an eye.  It's like on the internet everyone's entitled to have everything handed to them on a silver platter.
Just because you do, doesn't mean everybody does this.
I haven't watched TV for years (and I don't really have the urge to do).


To add another point to the debate, contrary to TV advertisments, online-advertisments might lead to a malware infection, e.g. some drive-by javascript exploit.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Merlandese on April 17, 2014, 06:33:15 PM
There are many webgame sites that make you sit through adverts before playing.

If the industry made it to the point where this format would be used for lengthier games like To The Moon (webgames are usually a few minutes of quick fun, and that's it) then I asume the game themselves would adapt to this by having  "resting" points in the story. A small arc is resolved, everything settles down and as you process all the info, the "commercial" would be on. Then the game resumes onto the next "chapter". It would definitely not work for every type of game.
That doesn't sound like a bad idea! I guess it still depends on how long you have to sit through adverts for though.

Games like The Walking Dead, and others that are becoming episodic in nature, are already primed for this type of future. And, believe it or not, the episodic nature works really well for people, especially adults who are afraid to invest heavily in games because of work or family. Throwing in adverts between episodes wouldn't be that far of stretch. Imagine if you had the choice between BUYING episodes of a game, or SITTING THROUGH a couple minutes of adverts before each one. I bet the majority of people would opt for the second.

And if that future came true, people who used Adblock-like programs would be very obviously stealing. It would be as if I sold you a jungle cruise experience in exchange for either money or you attending a lecture, and you chose the lecture, then didn't go to the lecture. XD Or something.

You are using up your time watching those adverts, and time is not something that you can get back. Once you've lost time, it's gone.

This is super true, and everyone knows that time is money. So, if you don't want to pay for a service in money, and you don't want to pay for it in time, then what you want is everything to be free. I can grasp this concept, because everyone wants everything to be free, but I can't get behind Adblock because the Gimme Stuff For Free mindset is detrimental to creativity.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 17, 2014, 07:10:16 PM
Maybe. Then again, you can get around TV commercials too, by recording a program and skipping the commercial breaks when you get round to watching it later. You can't really do that on a video streaming service like YouTube.

You can technically do it. Buy some computer recording software, make a youtube playlist and let them play while you record the screen to your harddrive. Then later you can watch this recording at your own leisure skipping those pesky 30 second ads :P

And as for how youtube pays for advertisements, I've always wondered that too. For what I know it IS about clicks, but I can't wrap my head around anyone really clicking those ads, yet I still get some pocket change money. So, either there's a lot of people who do click ads for whatever reason, or they actually may have some low-rate compensation for "views" on the ad even if they don't click on it.
As for how they know who watched it, YouTube has lots of tracking tools like that. As a content creator, you can already have tools to measure how your videos do for audience retention. You get charts of what parts of your video lose the viewer and stuff like that. I assume a similar tool would easily monitor whether you watched the advertisement or skipped it.

Just because you do, doesn't mean everybody does this.
I haven't watched TV for years (and I don't really have the urge to do).

Well it should go without saying I was obviously talking about people who watch TV. Did you never watched TV in your entire life or is it just now? Because if you used to watch TV, the point still stands. We do not question TV advertisement even though we PAY for the TV service (the fact that you don't, doesn't mean you question the practice) but we condemn having to sit through small adverts on a service that is given to us for nada. That's my point and should still stand even if you don't actually watch TV.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: ~ on April 17, 2014, 08:39:59 PM
I'm pretty sure ads on youtube are done on a viewing basis, not click-based.
They're more akin to a TV advert than a regular internet advert.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Thunderbird on April 18, 2014, 07:39:51 AM


Well it should go without saying I was obviously talking about people who watch TV. Did you never watched TV in your entire life or is it just now? Because if you used to watch TV, the point still stands. We do not question TV advertisement even though we PAY for the TV service (the fact that you don't, doesn't mean you question the practice) but we condemn having to sit through small adverts on a service that is given to us for nada. That's my point and should still stand even if you don't actually watch TV.

Actually I'm not attacking your point, but the way you draw your conclusion:
It's an overgeneralisation which you cannot use to make valid points, only barroom cliché.

Let me show you:

Quote
We watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time while paying for the monthly cable subscription and noone bats an eye.

"We watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time"
statement is false, only some do

"while paying for the monthly cable subscription"
statement is false, only some do, e.g. people living at parents house don't do

"and noone bats an eye. "
statement is false, I know people who hate the advertisments on TV

Now you use this to draw an conclusion for everyone on the internet with "It's like on the internet everyone's entitled to have everything handed to them on a silver platter."

It's useless to argue with that, as it isn't a valid statement in the first place. It's like the rambling of a granddad that everything was better in the old days. It's partly wrong and partly true, but doesn't provide a beneficial contribution to a discussion.

I know a lot of people do this generalisation when they really mean
"If you watch lengthier commercials on TV all the time while paying for the monthly cable subscription and don't bat an eye, you shouldn't cry about those on the internet"


Sorry for Offtopic ^^

Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Merlandese on April 18, 2014, 12:05:58 PM
Well, in defense of his statement, we have a lot of debates threads here and among other forums, and the topic of adverts in YouTube videos is very popular and defended on both sides. Television commercials... we don't have any debates regarding those here, at least. And I personally don't hear about it elsewhere despite the constant discussions of "unfair" practices and hate on adverts. If our debate section can cover things from the military, to love, to child birth, to software, to adverts, and yet favors the discussion of YouTube commercials without ever discussing television commercials, I think it's safe to assume that if the other aspects of the two issues are similar, one is accepted and the other isn't.

So then it's a matter of selling that they both have commercials. That's easy, they do.

And then it's a matter of selling that one you pay for, and the other is free. That's also easy, because it's actual data-type stuff.

So with his argument, we know ('know" for the accepted part) those three things, and reaching his conclusion is an understandable jump.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: EgotisticalRaven on April 18, 2014, 08:21:52 PM
I think the people don't complain about Television advertisements because the can't change them or remove them. People go on about the ads on Youtube because they can skip them, or refresh the page. I think people have come to accept that TVs have ads and there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't watch live Television that much (The last time I watched it was to watch Sherlock), I mostly watch DVDs or videos, but whenever I watch the TV, I always take the Mickey out of them.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Unimaginative Username on April 19, 2014, 04:27:02 AM
I think the people don't complain about Television advertisements because the can't change them or remove them. People go on about the ads on Youtube because they can skip them, or refresh the page. I think people have come to accept that TVs have ads and there's nothing you can do about it.

I record the TV programmes I want to watch so I can fast-forward through the adverts  8)

However, this is definitely why people only complain about YT adverts as opposed to TV ones; the TV ads have been there for a very long time (and even if you record the programme you still have to skip forwards every 20 minutes), whilst some YT videos don't have adverts and some do making people feel entitled to not having ads on their YT videos.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: atommo on April 19, 2014, 06:59:23 AM
TV ads have been there for a very long time (and even if you record the programme you still have to skip forwards every 20 minutes), whilst some YT videos don't have adverts and some do making people feel entitled to not having ads on their YT videos.
Adding to that, YouTube didn't used to make you watch ads in the first place. Sure, there have been banners and things like that on YouTube for a long time, but the forced video ads weren't always there (I don't remember having to sit through video ads on YT back in 2006). I feel that this adds to people's annoyance.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 19, 2014, 10:48:45 AM
Yeah, youtube didn't have these types of ads before, but if things stayed the way they were, YouTube wouldn't be what it is today. I know many people see it through nostalgia goggles, but the old youtube was an outdated piece of junk with junk content. It's the truth.

The inclusion of adverts has made possible for people to do a career as a content creator, and thus it has given us free quality content (not that there isn't any crap around, sure, but there's some gold to be found somewhere).

@Thunderbird

My point isn't that every single person watches TV commercials. My point is that mostly noone "fights" against it. Those who watch them just endure them, and those who don't well don't even other either. So, the practice itself of advertising on TV is almost never scrutinized, yet on the internet it's discussed all the time, even though YouTube is free as opposed to TV.
It does not matter that you don't pay for TV, you still can grasp the concept that the service is paid, right? even if you don't, you should be able to understand this concept. TV is paid, has ads, noone bats an eye. Sure, maybe some nutjob in a dark corner of the internet may have complained about it, but is it ever as often as people complain about internet ads? Not even close. And it should be MORE of a concern, considering you're already paying for the TV service. Imagine if you had to pay to watch a youtube video, and then you had ads on top of it. We'd never hear the end of it.

And for people who keep saying they record TV programs to skip ads: You can buy a computer screen capture software for less than a DVR. Then you can record all the youtube videos you want and "skip" the ads right away :)
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Thunderbird on April 19, 2014, 11:23:03 AM
Yeah, youtube didn't have these types of ads before, but if things stayed the way they were, YouTube wouldn't be what it is today. I know many people see it through nostalgia goggles, but the old youtube was an outdated piece of junk with junk content. It's the truth.

The inclusion of adverts has made possible for people to do a career as a content creator, and thus it has given us free quality content (not that there isn't any crap around, sure, but there's some gold to be found somewhere).

@Thunderbird

My point isn't that every single person watches TV commercials. My point is that mostly noone "fights" against it. Those who watch them just endure them, and those who don't well don't even other either. So, the practice itself of advertising on TV is almost never scrutinized, yet on the internet it's discussed all the time, even though YouTube is free as opposed to TV.
It does not matter that you don't pay for TV, you still can grasp the concept that the service is paid, right? even if you don't, you should be able to understand this concept. TV is paid, has ads, noone bats an eye. Sure, maybe some nutjob in a dark corner of the internet may have complained about it, but is it ever as often as people complain about internet ads? Not even close. And it should be MORE of a concern, considering you're already paying for the TV service. Imagine if you had to pay to watch a youtube video, and then you had ads on top of it. We'd never hear the end of it.

And for people who keep saying they record TV programs to skip ads: You can buy a computer screen capture software for less than a DVR. Then you can record all the youtube videos you want and "skip" the ads right away :)

A is bad and no one complains, so if B is also bad, you have no right to complain!
This argument is invalid.

But yeah, people probably are more used to those on TV, because they have grown up with those.
People usually complain about changes and the advertisments on youtube have changed in recent years.

Btw: Remember I'm not really against the ads, I think they do help giving more good content. ^^
There were some good videos on youtube before though, some people create good content for free.
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Ferdk on April 19, 2014, 12:18:06 PM
A is bad and no one complains, so if B is also bad, you have no right to complain!
This argument is invalid.

That is not my argument at all. I'm just saying "why aren't people complaining about the worse of the two at all?", just pointing out the irony.
Besides I never said A is bad. I said, noone complains about A and most people don't find A bad, why is B bad then if it's the same but better (free)?

Quote
Btw: Remember I'm not really against the ads, I think they do help giving more good content. ^^
There were some good videos on youtube before though, some people create good content for free.

Not on the scale of today, no. Maybe some good vloggers and stuff, but not the level of production some channels have nowadays. And certainly not the same amount :P

For the record I already said I ultimately don't really care much, I just wanted to take part in the debate, but whether people use adblock or not doesn't really bother me, even if I happen to be a youtube content creator. I skip ads on my own videos so... :P
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Thunderbird on April 19, 2014, 04:35:24 PM
That is not my argument at all. I'm just saying "why aren't people complaining about the worse of the two at all?", just pointing out the irony.
Besides I never said A is bad. I said, noone complains about A and most people don't find A bad, why is B bad then if it's the same but better (free)?
But you don't know if those people that complain watch TV, you just assume it.

Quote
Not on the scale of today, no. Maybe some good vloggers and stuff, but not the level of production some channels have nowadays. And certainly not the same amount :P
Sure, the production scale is bigger as there is money to be made, no arguing about that.
But that doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any good stuff without it.

Quote
For the record I already said I ultimately don't really care much, I just wanted to take part in the debate, but whether people use adblock or not doesn't really bother me, even if I happen to be a youtube content creator. I skip ads on my own videos so... :P

My work was for free anyway, did only spent a couple of hours on creating videos though ^^
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Merlandese on April 19, 2014, 04:51:34 PM
There was this article I read about how people would feel ripped off through packaging even if they got the same, or even a better, deal.

The tests were done multiple ways, but the one that stuck out is that if you fill a 16oz cup eith 16oz of coffee and charge two dollars, people are fine with that. But if you charge two dollars, give 16oz of coffee, and put it in a 20oz cup, people will complain that they are being ripped off.

Somehow television is giving us the same amount of liquid as YouTube, but in a smaller cup, and so YouTube is the problem. (The reason YouTube's cup is bigger is probably because of what Atommo said about how there didn't used to be adverts, and now their are, whereas in our history of other media we have no knowledge of an advert-free period.)
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Reives on May 02, 2014, 09:27:56 PM
Sorry this isn't entirely on-track with the current debate, but just wanted to share that when I was in China last year, the equivalent of youtube there (youku.com) has their ad at ~45 seconds (unskippable) for like, 5 minute videos. While people still complain about it there, it's become somewhat of a status quo.

It seems like Youtube's gradually and sneakily moving toward that direction too, with the introduction of shorter unskippables, and the randomized chance of getting that type of ads as opposed to the skip-in-5 ones being gradually increased as time goes on. It's interesting how we get accustomed to something when it's introduced gradually; it's kinda like being immunized to medicine. A lotta stuff online and offline have been like that even just in the past decade. D:
Title: Re: AdBlock
Post by: Unimaginative Username on May 03, 2014, 09:30:24 AM
Well, last week I installed adBlock for exclusive use on Channel 4 onDemand which is basically a website that shows Channel 4 programs after they have been aired. Unfortunately it utilises adverts every 10-15 minutes for around 5 minutes at a time which makes watching programs on it unbearable.

I would have rather recorded the program on TV and skip forwards through the ads, but I missed the first episode so had to use the onDemand.