YouTube is getting far more aggressive in this game of “whack-a-mole” with ad blockers where unlike in the past where it would sometimes be months before extensions like Ghostery would have its last workaround negated (from a logged in account), to now happening every week (this previous one was not too long ago). This also blocks live streaming (shorts seem to be unaffected probably because its analytics are different). YouTube hasn’t yet figured out how to deal with private browsing/logged out accounts using such blockers (yet) though.
Here is also some additional food for thought. YouTube also runs ads on non-monetized channels. The above and below are of two different videos on my channel (non-monetized). My channel is small. Any ad revenue would be pennies. However, Google/YouTube looks at the total aggregate of these many small channels (where those pennies add up in Google’s revenue coffers).
Google/YouTube’s attempt to make the user feel guilty (“ads allow YouTube to be used by billions worldwide”) is a feeble one. They are a $2.4 trillion market cap company. Cut the excessive salaries of the executive and senior management team first and then I will consider eliminating my use of blockers. But that isn’t even the part that tees me off. That is below.
Now you know when you have content that contains say copyrighted music that Content ID notes as such, but their system allows its reuse (with the knowledge that if you are monetized, that you yourself cannot monetize that video). All of this information is noted in the copyright panel section as well as summarized in YouTube Studio. A good example of why a creator may have such videos are for reactions, commenting, doing covers, etc. Another is that for those who live stream (and their is copyrighted music playing that their stream happens to capture, well you end up with a VOD that has to have all of that edited (removed or replaced). Well, YouTube runs their ads on top of those types of videos as well (see the following).
I knew this would be a Muserk Rights claim beforehand (where it would affect monetization IF I had that enabled). Muserk is one of the main regional CMO’s (content management organizations) that handles many Japanese labels/artists global licensing with YouTube. Those copyright holders are paid via this arrangement. While creators are usually unable to monetize this content (YouTube’s licensing agreement pays the rights holders via these CMO’s, but most terms prevent “double dipping” like paying ad revenue to the content creator), I would not bet against YouTube/Google likely pocketing whatever revenues they generate from the ads they run on those videos (even the ones for us non-monetized by choice channels) because who is going to hold them to account; it’s not like there is any external independent oversight on this stuff. But these companies sure know how to make their users feel guilty about these things.
And this is why I view YouTube/Google (Alphabet) in such a negative light because they themselves do the whole “do as I say, not as I do” routine with their entire advertisement system. This double standard BS plus their privacy invading mechanisms is the main driver for why I block their ads and tracking to the extent that I do. They guilt trip users the way they do while they do far more harm/damage by comparison. While Wikipedia is not a definitive source itself (even info on their can be tainted), this one entry documents some of this (a good point for validating some of this info yourself by going back to the sources and researching more on your own).
Google’s ad system has long been a gamed system when it comes to the metrics and measurements used. Google’s search algorithm and results (which extends to YouTube) have been manipulated in the past (likely happening until present day). I brought up “affilate marketing” because Warrior forum (this is a DuckDuckGo search link) still exists and you can read for yourself the types of games played. Look at the entire SEO cottage industry (how all of this gaming works to general clicklink revenue out of thin air).
Digressing, Google generates ad revenues off of a lot of other peoples intellectual property/rights as well as off of plenty of disinformation (not even touching on LLM training for their AI). Like their running of ads on channels that opt out of monetization (like mine), is one perfect example of this (they shouldn’t even be doing it in such a blanket fashion like the above). The result is a company that hasn’t done much to earn any sort of respect from me
Since that huge panel above makes it clear that the use of ad blockers is a terms of service violation, am I worried about account actions taking place? Not at all. As I learned more about how “evil” Alphabet really is over the years, my stance has always been go ahead. This goes for every dominant platform (when it is written in their terms of service/use they can pull the plug anytime they want to, that is a good enough sign to be wary). Getting banned off of YouTube for something like blocking their ads would be a badge of honor at this point.
This is why I’ve been working on de-platforming/de-Googling myself as much as possible by looking at/using alternatives. It’s why I am setting up my own media handling site. These are things I used to do over two decades ago (self-hosting) that I thought could be eliminated, but is now looking to be the way to go again. I know Google doesn’t like being used as a CDN/host and will eventually find ways to limit embeds (or to begin pushing ads/blocking embeds). Again, their methods/incentives (for analytics, engagement, and thus monetization) don’t work with folks like myself (who aren’t reliant on their monetization). I’ll just utilize them while I can (like how they use people and their personal information) until that plug is pulled while having alternatives ready to go.
