It's insane how many people disagree with this because they have a parasocial relationship with a YouTuber. Youtube has the power to enforce creators to mark sponsor segments and allow auto skip. It would be easy to do. This is a perfectly reasonable solution but people think yotubers are their friends or dad and think they deserve to shove ads at people all the time.
>>109777726The youtube video is an ad and you chose to watch it. Pick a different video.
Oh is this what that's about? I thought it was that people were still getting normal ads despite paying for Premium. I had a 1 month trial recently and I found the sponsor skip thing to be very inconsistent about when it shows up.
>>109777759They don't even have the balls to call it a sponsor skip it's just wherever people skip the most
>>109777726I block ads and skip sponsor bullshit. What now, bitches?
>>109777726The judge should throw this out. YouTube is not responsible for what creators put into their videos. Also, the mandatory out of video ads that youtube imposes on viewers is a totally different thing to the in video ads that you can skip over.
>>109778113YouTube can easily set policy to make ads auto skip. They have control over everything that is in a video, try putting copyrighted music in a YouTube video and see how early they can police content when they want to
Sponsorblock already exists it would cost youtube nothing to implement that natively. Youtube makes no money of in sponsor video ads and you can pretty much skip them with premium but they make you press a button. It should just autoskip. Youtube are false advertising saying Premium has no ads when there are ads in all the videos.
>>109778267I don't think they should. And it would be very unreasonable to do so.
>>109777726Ok but unless I get some of that money from the lawsuit, then they can fuck off
>>109777759Netflix did this years ago. Get ads despite paying to get away from ads
>>109778331The YouTuber isnt your friend no ads means no ads
>>109778405You are paying YouTube to not serve you ads. You are not paying the YouTuber to not serve you ads. YouTube hiding sponsored segments would be a form of unfair enrichment.
>>109778420No ads means no ads the YouTuber is not your friend
>>109778420I am paying youtube to not shove ads into my fucking face because that money is supposed to go into the fucking youtubers I watch instead of the pockets of whatever retarded ass CEO is jerking off to bullshit things like thisYoutube deserves to be firebombed like what happened with that one anime studio in japan
What is this "sponsored segment" you speak of?
>>109778499Can't use it on my smart tv
>>109778267>They have control over everything that is in a video, try putting copyrighted music in a YouTube video and see how early they can police content when they want toYou're comparing two entirely different classes of problems, same as "stop this 2D printer from printing the EURion constellation" versus "stop this 3D printer from printing a gun".
>>109778519Yes you can. Its bundled in SmartTube Next.
>>109778547If YouTube can ban porn they can ban ads its just a matter of what they want to do
>>109777726ive never seen an ad on youtube before wtf are you retards talking about? yt was always free btw.
>>109778113>YouTube is not responsible for what creators put into their videos. They are if they say "you will never watch an ad" and then the video has an ad.
>>109778758Sponsors are not ads. They are fundamentally different. They only way to make them the same is to throw away all nuance and detail and boil them down to a single statement description. Once you boil things down to one sentence you can make all kinds of things the same as other things.
>>109778547Indeed, guns. Considering guntubers get strikes right away for directing viewers to websites where they can legally buy firearms and parts for them, the world's biggest advertising company is evidently quite competent at scanning videos for sponsor statements.
>>109777726Ublock and sponsorblock.Now what? Literally paid zero.
Merriam-Webster defines "advertisement" as:>a public notice>especially : a paid notice that is published or broadcast (as to attract customers or to provide information of public interest)So yes, the second a sponsor has an entire segment about a product, it is definitionally an advertisement.Therefore, Youtube was making materially false statements by saying Premium was "ad free."
>>109778113>YouTube is not responsible for what creators put into their videosConsidering they use AI moderation, they are.
>>109778331>And it would be very unreasonable to do so.Put the burden on the uploader, sponsored videos already have to be declared by federal law, it's not hard to extend that to "sponsored section: 4:30 - 5:45".
>>109778841You know this is bullshit if someone is getting paid to ADVERTISE a product or service thats an ad, period.
>>109778841>Sponsors are not adshttps://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255Sponsors are ads. They give you money, goods, and/or services, you mention them by name or display their products in exchange.It's an ad.
To everyone posting itt about sponsor block yes you're a genius. You can work around something you are very smart for installing an extension but it still should be blocked without needing a 3rd party plugin since it's a service YouTube is selling
>>109777726>Youtube has the power to enforce creators to mark sponsor segments and allow auto skipthat would be editorializing
>>109779092You have to disclose sponsorships or paid content in videos already this would be one extra setting for premium users to auto skip your paid segments. If you are so in love with your YouTuber and must see there ad then you can whitelist them or something. This has such an easy solution ready to go there's no excuse to just implement sponsor block officially for premium users
>>109779114What if there is no segment. The sponsored content is blended into the rest of the video. Some creators do that.
>>109777726>>109778519>>109779088Premium lets you jump over "commonly skipped" segments. And as enough people these days use SponsorBlock, it inadvertently uses that as a data source so the skips usually align.Maybe YT know what they're doing but can't be publicly saying that they're skipping creator ads when they're not getting a cut of them: that would likely be a whole new lawsuit.
>>109777797So do I but it's not a feature on tv's and mobile devices where everything is more under their control.PC's are bad btw. You shouldn't own them.
>>109779195>What if someone cheats the system Then they get punished or banned
>>109777726The creators will be losing money with their sponsor ads being blocked so youtube would have to compensate them if they don't want people leaving
>>109777726i get this for free with ublock and sponsor block
>>109779195it's illegal to not disclose sponsored content, clearly and up front
>>109777726>Youtube has the power to enforce creators to mark sponsor segments and allow auto skip. It would be easy to do.1) No. They can only do this with youtubers who monetize their channels. They have just about no power over everyone else.2) They certainly can't retroactively do it reliably. Because of that it's never going to work reliably and guessing is the best they'll be able to do. This is an absurd thing to freak out over but I guess people who pay a company to stop doing something they don't like on their own computers are naturally absurd.
>>109779067Even if you did this it wouldn't magically apply to all the videos uploaded already.
>>109779418Yes but you're *not* legally obligated to disclose it in a machine readable format which is what that feature would need. Even if you demanded it today most videos wouldn't have it which would make the UX worse and more surprising.
>>109779444>Yes but you're *not* legally obligated to disclose it in a machine readable format which is what that feature would needThen YouTube tells you to flag it or you get banned.
>>109777726Goys pay for a free extension?
