Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).

Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.

If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
on YouTube.

It's not as if my not viewing the ads was harming them in any way,
as I've never had the slightest interest in anything they advertise.
People who are interested in the ads won't block them, so what's the
*point* in their new rule? Just to be mean?

I tried simply disabling JavaScript, but YouTube won't work at all
without it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In Message-ID:<uhphri$5ih$1@reader2.panix.com>,
"Keith F. Lynch" <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:

>
>Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
>giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
>off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
<snip>
>If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
>on YouTube.

Download the video with yt-dlp. Watch it locally with VLC. But you
don't get the links and see-alsos this way.

On 10/30/23 8:30 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
> giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
> off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
>

I don't get bothered by ads or counter-blocks. If I had a sure-fire way
to imitate my success, I'd give it to you, but here's what I do:

UBlock Origin is my ad blocker. I used to use AdBlock Plus, but an ad
blocker that subjects you to its own ads misses the point.

NoScript limits my JavaScript exposure. As you say, YouTube won't run in
the browser without being enabled for JavaScript, but I don't enable
JavaScript for Google's tag manager or analytics.

I clear cookies fairly frequently. In particular, I have my browser set
to forget all cookies on exit.

There may be other factors in my browser setup that I haven't thought of
which make it work. What I've mentioned may or may not work for you, but
I think they're worth trying.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> I don't get bothered by ads or counter-blocks.

No matter how numerous or intrusive they are? Here's a recent post
on the subject:

Wow. Tried youtube without my adblocker(so I can watch) and holy shit.
5 ads for a 15 min video!
2 at the beginning, 2 at the 3:30 mark and 1 at the halfway!
Unacceptable

And here's a reply to it:

Yup, just opened one to show my friend a short vid that was like 5
minutes long, i had already watched half of it before and when i
opened it again boom 2 ads, I say ok, fine i just wanna show him
this rq so Ill watch these couple ads I guess, then I put I put the
time back a couple minutes to start from the begining and boom two
more ads and I said nah FUCK THIS. Done with youtube, bum ass website.

Is that anything like your experience?

> I used to use AdBlock Plus, but an ad blocker that subjects you to
> its own ads misses the point.

AdBlock Plus has never subjected me to ads.

I found something that works. If I create a web page of my own, and
embed a YouTube video in it, I can view it. It's inconvenient, but I
won't have to speed up the process of creating and uploading that page
by much for it to take up less time than the ads would. Especially
since (as far as I know) I can embed any number of YouTube videos in
a single page.

Also, a large part of what I use YouTube for is music -- either
orchestral or in a foreign language -- to listen to while I do
some verbal task such as reading or posting. For such music to
be interrupted at an arbitrary point, especially for a verbal ad,
is just completely unacceptable to me.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:30:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
> giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
> off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).

I've heard the uBlock Origins is better but it is still cat & mouse.
So it depends on whether the cat or the mouse is winning this week.

> Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
> with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
> whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
> side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
> skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
> the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
>
> If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
> on YouTube.

I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome) and
rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment. Obviously
that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might not be an
issue for you.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
> I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
> and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
> Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
> not be an issue for you.

I tried that, and I got ads. Even worse, the first (and only, since I
immediately aborted out of it) ad was Christmas-themed. I don't like
to see anything Christmas-themed before December. *Especially* before
November. Christmas season isn't special if it's Christmas season for
a large proportion of the year. It got up to 80 F (27 C) yesterday,
not exactly Yuletide weather. I didn't even start raking until today.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 10/31/23 7:48 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
>> and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
>> Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
>> not be an issue for you.
>
> I tried that, and I got ads. Even worse, the first (and only, since I
> immediately aborted out of it) ad was Christmas-themed. I don't like
> to see anything Christmas-themed before December. *Especially* before
> November. Christmas season isn't special if it's Christmas season for
> a large proportion of the year. It got up to 80 F (27 C) yesterday,
> not exactly Yuletide weather. I didn't even start raking until today.

You might appreciate this video, even if you have to go through ads:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDlFzC8tCRg

There was a sudden freeze in New Hampshire overnight, after being over
70 F. on Saturday.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 8:30:45 PM UTC-4, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
> giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
> off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
>
> Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
> with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
> whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
> side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
> skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
> the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
>
> If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
> on YouTube.
>
> It's not as if my not viewing the ads was harming them in any way,
> as I've never had the slightest interest in anything they advertise.
> People who are interested in the ads won't block them, so what's the
> *point* in their new rule? Just to be mean?
>
> I tried simply disabling JavaScript, but YouTube won't work at all
> without it.
> --
> Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
> Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.

Pt

Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 00:30:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch
><kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Today YouTube started blocking attempts to view it with an ad-blocker,
>> giving me the choice of paying $14 a month in perpetuity or of turning
>> off my ad-blocker (AdBlock Plus on Firefox under Ubuntu).
>
>I've heard the uBlock Origins is better but it is still cat & mouse.
>So it depends on whether the cat or the mouse is winning this week.

According to the uBO team Youtube changes the detection script twice
per day to defeat the various well-known ad-blockers.

Which means you need to have filter list/ruleset that update often to
defeat it, and even then there will be periods between Youtube pushes
an update and when uBO or others are able to update their
"countermeasures".

Youtube's ad blocker blocker is NOT rolled out everywhere yet so if
you use an ad-blocker without seeing any issues this may be why.

>> Turning off my ad-blocker resulted in a very unpleasant experience
>> with YouTube, with multiple ads both before and in the middle of
>> whatever I was trying to view, and additional stationary ads to the
>> side. Years ago, the ads were only before the video, and you could
>> skip them after the first five seconds. I might as well be watching
>> the "vast wasteland" that is over-the-air TV.
>>
>> If I can't fix this, I'll probably just give up on watching anything
>> on YouTube.
>
>I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome) and
>rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment. Obviously
>that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might not be an
>issue for you.

Yeah, it seems to be cookie & account based so private windows OR
eradicating all tracks of Google/Youtube login and cookies does seem
to help.

However as you mention it does result in some "missing features" and I
wouldn't be surprised if this is temporary, IE that once it's rolled
out in all regions and users it'll also start affecting people that
isn't logged in. They're in the "increasing the temperature slowly"
stage...

Youtube will definitely loose some users over this but I expect that
it WILL be a net positive for them, even if I hate it.

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/17j6ygs/youtube_antiadblock_and_ads_october_29_2023_mega/

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:11:02 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com>
wrote:

>On 10/31/23 7:48 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>> Andy Leighton <andyl@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>> I've tried using a private window in Firefox (Incognito in Chrome)
>>> and rejecting cookies and that seemed to work for the moment.
>>> Obviously that means you can't comment or whatever - but that might
>>> not be an issue for you.
>>
>> I tried that, and I got ads. Even worse, the first (and only, since I
>> immediately aborted out of it) ad was Christmas-themed. I don't like
>> to see anything Christmas-themed before December. *Especially* before
>> November. Christmas season isn't special if it's Christmas season for
>> a large proportion of the year. It got up to 80 F (27 C) yesterday,
>> not exactly Yuletide weather. I didn't even start raking until today.
>
>You might appreciate this video, even if you have to go through ads:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDlFzC8tCRg
>
>There was a sudden freeze in New Hampshire overnight, after being over
>70 F. on Saturday.

Cute. I looked at it on DuckDuckGo, on Firefox, on Win10, no clue
what adblocker I'm using. I didn't see any ads.
--

Qualified immunity = virtual impunity.

Tim Merrigan

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com

On 11/1/23 12:18 AM, Peter Trei wrote:

> I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.

Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.

I do pay for other streaming services, including Netflix, Curiosity
Stream, and Apple Classical. They provide a better value for my interests.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Torbjorn Lindgren <tl@none.invalid> wrote:
> According to the uBO team Youtube changes the detection script twice
> per day to defeat the various well-known ad-blockers.

I haven't noticed any behaviors that change with time.

What I have noticed is that I can play videos without ads if I embed
them in another web page. Later I realized that I can simply "embed"
them in place, by changing /watch?v= into /embed/ in the URL. That
almost always works, but rarely gives me an error message. Which
videos give the error message never changes.

I've also noticed that videos that are intended for children play
normally, with no need for embedding. I haven't checked whether
they would play ad-free even if I disabled my ad blocker.

I've also noticed that SmartTube, an app on my brother's "Amazon Fire
TV Stick" is completely unaffected. That app blocks not just ads, but
also sponsor blocks within each video, even if narrated by the content
creator. And it allows you to vary the speed of the video. The
native mode YouTube player for the Fire TV Stick does none of that.

Of course it's only been two days since YouTube threw the switch,
and I haven't spent all my time since then testing it, so I may have
missed further changes. And of course there may be more changes
to come.

> Youtube's ad blocker blocker is NOT rolled out everywhere yet so if
> you use an ad-blocker without seeing any issues this may be why.

"Everywhere" in terms of geography, or in terms of browser, player,
and app?

> Yeah, it seems to be cookie & account based so private windows OR
> eradicating all tracks of Google/Youtube login and cookies does seem
> to help.

A private window on Firefox resulted in the adblock icon disappearing,
and my getting the all-ads-all-the-time YouTube experience.

> However as you mention it does result in some "missing features" and
> I wouldn't be surprised if this is temporary, IE that once it's
> rolled out in all regions and users it'll also start affecting
> people that isn't logged in.

To clarify, I've *never* been logged into YouTube or Google. That
means that I've never been able to comment. But I was able to view
comments by others. With "embed" I am unable to view comments.

> Youtube will definitely loose some users over this but I expect that
> it WILL be a net positive for them, even if I hate it.

I expect that it's so odious that they will either reverse it (and
fire whatever idiot whose idea it was) or shut down YouTube. Again,
forcing people who have no interest in the ads to view them doesn't
benefit Google, doesn't benefit their advertisers, doesn't benefit any
of their content creators, and certainly doesn't benefit the viewers.
Those who are interested in the ads have always been able to view them.

I'm not against ads. I often seek them out. I'm against intrusive,
unwanted, and time-consuming ads. For instance before the Web I would
use the Yellow Pages to learn about goods and services available
locally, and then phone the relevant companies. Would it have
benefited anyone if everyone who wished to make any phone call was
somehow required to spend a minute or two viewing a page of the Yellow
Pages randomly selected by the phone company first? How about if the
phone call was also repeatedly forcibly paused in the middle until you
had viewed an additional random page? Would anyone put up with that?

I'm sure that some will sign up for Premium. But it's just not worth
it for most casual users. Not to mention that it feels like sheer
extortion. As if Google was saying that they hate their users.

Another issue is that some ad sites contain malware. The FBI
recommends that everyone use adblockers for that reason.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> Peter Trei wrote:
>> I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.

The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.

Peter Trei is usually a smart guy, so I'm surprised I have to spell
this out.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 11/1/23 5:52 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> A private window on Firefox resulted in the adblock icon disappearing,
> and my getting the all-ads-all-the-time YouTube experience.

Firefox has a setting for each browser extension for whether you want it
to operate in private windows. That behavior suggests your ad blocker
needs to have its "run in private windows" toggle turned on.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 21:52:42 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Youtube's ad blocker blocker is NOT rolled out everywhere yet so if
>> you use an ad-blocker without seeing any issues this may be why.
>
> "Everywhere" in terms of geography, or in terms of browser, player,
> and app?

Yes.

1) there are some countries where Youtube just doesn't do advertising
at all - for example Albania or Moldova. The adverts I tend to get (in
the UK) when viewing youube are nowhere as intrusive - usually 10sec to
20sec at the start (and the sort of thing you see on UK TV). Of course
for very short videos that is still a pain. But you will find
advertsing (and how regulated it is) is different from country to country.

2) I think they have turned on, or turned on different levels, of
ad-blocker-blocking in different countries at different times.

3) I think there are probably some mobile apps that are able to avoid
ads at the moment, or which can be configured to avoid ads. I think it
is obvious that youtube will eventually try to force ads on those.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:40:50 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/23 12:18 AM, Peter Trei wrote:
>
>> I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
>
> Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
> why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
> YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.

Yeah Youtube Premium is a £12/month rolling contract - that just isn't
worth it in the UK, at least not for me.

--
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
- Douglas Adams

On 11/2/23 5:36 AM, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:40:50 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:

>> Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
>> why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
>> YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.
>
> Yeah Youtube Premium is a £12/month rolling contract - that just isn't
> worth it in the UK, at least not for me.
>

Just came upon this article:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/31/23940583/youtube-ad-blocker-crackdown-broadening

I expect that whatever combination of stuff is blocking ads for me will
stop working soon.

Google is handing all its competitors a boost. Maybe some competitors
worth following will emerge from this. I tried Rumble for a while, just
because it's not Google, but got tired of its filling my home page with
political stuff which I mostly disliked, rather than videos from
accounts I follow.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
>them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
>result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
>or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.

I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 11/2/23 8:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
>> them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
>> result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
>> or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
>
> I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
> If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
> ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.

You're making a big assumption in that. Unless you know a lot about how
a particular person thinks, you can't say how or whether advertising
manipulates them. People aren't off-the-line puppets, nor do advertisers
assume they are. As long as enough people respond positively to justify
the expenditure, without generating too much hostility in the process,
the advertisers consider it a win.

I'll admit that advertising sometimes manipulates me. I've had almost no
Twix bars in the past thirty years, because of a Twix commercial that
was horribly painful in its timing. I have a feeling of disgust when I
see a Scrub-a-Dub car wash because of its commercials from many years
ago, but I can't even remember what those commercials said.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
>> them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them
>> won't result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the
>> advertiser or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and
>> annoys people.

> I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising
> works. If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing
> most of the ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some
> advertisers do also.

To the best of my recollection, I have never in my adult life bought
anything that was push-advertised, i.e. by a radio or TV commercial,
spam, phone call, door-to-door salesman, or pop-up. Indeed, even
if it was a product I was already regularly buying, if the ad was
annoying, intrusive, or excessive enough, I stopped buying it.

In fact, years ago I stopped watching over-the-air TV (and never even
started watching cable TV), listening to the radio, removed the bell
from my phone, and stopped viewing websites with unblockable ads,
just because I find unwanted ads so annoying. They might be okay
in moderation, but it just got ridiculous.

(By "radio and TV" I'm not including ham radio. I am including
"ad-free" public radio and TV, as those are both actually full of
ads, along with boasts of how they're ad free, repeated requests for
donations, and failure to mention how they're already getting tons
of my tax money.)

ObFandom: I also ceased renewing my subscription to Analog when
I realized they had sold my address, resulting in scam ads in
the snail mail.

I have occasionally bought things because of ads in newspapers,
magazines, or snail mail, all of which, please note, are easily
skipped.

I have often sought out ads, e.g. in Yellow Pages. Or I've gone to
stores or shopping malls mostly just to see what products and services
they had and for how much.

As a separate issue, any ads that are illegal (e.g. spam and
telemarketing) or deceptive (e.g. a snail-mail ad disguised as
something else to trick people into opening it) make me vow to never
do business with that firm. Having anything to do with criminals or
dishonest people is a really really really bad idea, as I learned the
hard way nearly half a century ago.

Getting back to YouTube, I'd have no objection to one or two ads that
could be skipped within 5 seconds at the beginning of each video.
That's what they used to have. But multiple ads that can't be
skipped, at the beginning, and in the middle of each video? No.
Just no. Hell no. Life is too short to waste large amounts of it
repeatedly watching the same ads for products that I wouldn't want
even if they were free.

What if they called a war and nobody came? If YouTube is making war
against their viewers, and I can't find a quick and easy way to block
the ads, count me out.

For now, replacing "/watch?v=" with "/embed/" in a YouTube URL works
at blocking all ads. I'm sure that if YouTube really works at it,
they can block that and all other workarounds, and soon they'd have
no viewers left.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

On 11/2/23 5:36 AM, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 16:40:50 -0400, Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> On 11/1/23 12:18 AM, Peter Trei wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder how Keith thinks YouTube should finance its operations.
>>
>> Google has figured out some ways to do it without ads, which is probably
>> why they're rich and (I assume) you aren't. They have YouTube Premium,
>> YouTube Music, and YouTube TV. None of them are worth the price to me.
>
> Yeah Youtube Premium is a £12/month rolling contract - that just isn't
> worth it in the UK, at least not for me.
>

I just got three free months of YouTube Premium when I bought a monitor
from Best Buy. The catch is that if I don't cancel within that period,
they'll start billing me, but I have the self-discipline to cancel by
then. I've done a similar trick a couple of times with Amazon where I
accepted a free Prime trial so I could get free shipping on a package.
They count on most people staying on, but they know some won't. It's all
fair under their rules.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com

Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>On 11/2/23 8:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
>>> them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
>>> result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
>>> or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
>>
>> I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
>> If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
>> ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
>
>You're making a big assumption in that. Unless you know a lot about how
>a particular person thinks, you can't say how or whether advertising
>manipulates them. People aren't off-the-line puppets, nor do advertisers
>assume they are. As long as enough people respond positively to justify
>the expenditure, without generating too much hostility in the process,
>the advertisers consider it a win.

It doesn't matter how advertising manipulates one person. It only matters
how advertising manipulates most people in a population, because that is
what affects how advertisers behave.

As ads get more targetted that population may get smaller. But advertisers
don't care about Keith specifically, they care about the group of which
he is a part. And as long as advertising keeps manipulating most people,
it's not going to change.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 11/6/23 6:19 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
>> On 11/2/23 8:53 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Keith F. Lynch <kfl@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>>> The ads have always been available to those who are interested in
>>>> them. Forcing those who aren't interested in them to view them won't
>>>> result in any additional sales, hence doesn't benefit the advertiser
>>>> or anyone else, but merely wastes everyone's time and annoys people.
>>>
>>> I hate to tell you this, Keith, but this is not how advertising works.
>>> If you think this is how advertising works, you are missing most of the
>>> ways advertising manipulates you. To be fair, some advertisers do also.
>>
>> You're making a big assumption in that. Unless you know a lot about how
>> a particular person thinks, you can't say how or whether advertising
>> manipulates them. People aren't off-the-line puppets, nor do advertisers
>> assume they are. As long as enough people respond positively to justify
>> the expenditure, without generating too much hostility in the process,
>> the advertisers consider it a win.
>
> It doesn't matter how advertising manipulates one person. It only matters
> how advertising manipulates most people in a population, because that is
> what affects how advertisers behave.
>
> As ads get more targetted that population may get smaller. But advertisers
> don't care about Keith specifically, they care about the group of which
> he is a part. And as long as advertising keeps manipulating most people,
> it's not going to change.

That's what I was trying to say.

--
Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com