I don’t use ad blockers, just normal YouTube. One thing I noticed about a month ago is that when I’m watching some silly video a 55 second ad will come on with about three minutes left to view on the video. It’s at that point I usually just back out and look for other videos to watch. My grandson told me it seems odd because YouTube monetization requires the whole video to be viewed before they’ll pay. Does this make sense? I don’t know much about “monetization” I just watch silly videos.
Google know who they’re streaming videos to. They know this from the back-end. They absolutely do not require a script running in the browser to phone home about it in order to count “views”. All the telemetry they need they can get from existing traffic; the additional telemetry supplied by scripts is mostly just for Bad Reasons and it’s morally fine to block it.
adblockers cause views to drop
Nothing causes me to drop a video like an ad I can’t put up with, like a political ad. This is some BULLSHIT.
It’s true. Having to constantly update some adblockers and ways to evade ads in youtube made me realize shitty youtube videos are not worth the effort and I barely use it nowadays.
Tldr: youtube forced ai into video monitoring and it keeps killing videos it shouldn’t, so instead of saying Ai is bad they’re blaming af blockers because why not lie when there’s no repercussions?
YouTube views are dropping because they are using AI to vet and cull age innappropriate content from minors. the problem is the ai is very bad at its job and marks way too many videos as not advertiser friendly, which effectively kills YouTube promoting that video in feeds. this is the default view for new accounts, so you have to specifically turn off parental controls to see a normal feed. this started happening about 4 months ago. a number of channels I watch have made comments about this, including Redlettermedia
I don’t understand:
-
What is ‘AI in video monitoring?’
-
The article mentions literally nothing about this, so where did that come from?
the article provides one “official” explanation for views dropping, and i am citing an alternative explanation from the perspective of creators themselves who see the analytical data and the judgments being past on their videos.
Ok, but that’s not a TLDR of the article.
the tldr was for my wordy comment not the article. why would i summarize the article?
Because when you comment, “TLDR” under an article, it’s assumed to be a “TLDR” of the article. It also doesn’t make sense to say TLDR was a summary of your long comment because you didn’t make a long comment to summarize, you just jumped right in with TLDR.
-
Not saying I don’t believe that’s what’s happening, but the article mentions nothing about any sort of YouTube AI interference.
Because the AI integration is a recent change unrelated to this data. The commenter is pulling it out of their ass.
If we’re just throwing out theories, I’d propose it was the dramatic increase in ads with a decrease in quality of content being served by the algorithm. The only thing that gets front page access is clickbait.
youtube forced ai into video monitoring and it keeps killing videos it shouldn’t
That explains why sometimes the video stops and I get error message. I thought it may have to do with switching the script blockers on or off.
Pinch flat. GitHub. Go.
This is hearsay from victims looking for a reason of their suffering.
Source: my ass
This is not at all what happened. Maybe try reading the article next time.
frustrated by ads that feel irrelevant
What?
Do they think we have a friend-or-foe system that only shoots down advertisements from adversaries?
An ad is an ad, and should be terminated on sight.
I used to prefer personalized ads over the insanity that was 90-00s “random” ads experience. But, since ads became a risk vector, I agree with a block by default approach, and I’ll find alternate ways to support sites I visit frequently rather than allowlist ads.
Blocking ads for decades everywhere, life is sooo goood without that cancer. P.S. The only place were ads should appear are “yellow pages” thing, for example messenger channels just for that, where you intentionally join to look for local deals, discounts, contractors etc, especially to support local economy and not some megacorp. And ofc current google spying is not helping, block the ads, block trackers, it ruins the “steal the data” model.
I’m sure that the number of times I’ve decided “nah I don’t need to see that” after being told an ad blocker violated YouTube’s terms of service has absolutely nothing to do with it either.
Even on a computer without ad blocker (work laptop, chrome browser)
the number of times i say “nah i don’t need to see that” as soon as thes annoying ads comes up before the video…
The decline probably has very little to do with ad blockers.
Exactly.
If I am forced to see ads, especially intrusive or page filling ones, I will not continue.
I watched lots of YouTube in the past.
When they started inserting ads into the videos (not channel sponsored stuff), the camel started getting weak.
When they started requiring sign-ins or blocking access when using a proxy that was the straw.
I don’t use YouTube anymore.
The decline was very sudden, almost instantaneous, and can be traced back to the exact date a block list, used by most major desktop ad blockers, added the YouTube View Counter API endpoint to their list.
But sure… nothing to do with ad blockers.
For many years biggest online threats were criminals and malware. Today the biggest threats are big companies, especially Google. Everyday we have to “fight” against it because it tries to steal all our data and even more.
If you see an ad, close the tab.
Literally the only way they will learn. I really don’t understand how we as a society have accepted ads as a necessary evil. We all hate them, but we all also make them work. It’s horrible.
I’ve been wondering for a while where the point of diminishing returns is. Surely, at some point, ads become aggressive enough to have an adverse effect on advertisers?
I often wonder how ads of any kind have ever worked, unless it was an ad for something we had already planned on buying.
Ads are super effective. If you have something to buy, but you don’t know much about it, you will tend towards buying the thing that was advertised to you more often than not just because you are more familiar with it over other things. You might not stick with it, but being the first thing someone tries is huge.
I don’t know why my brain said this was memeable, but here we are
Before their media blitz campaign, Hormel’s Spam was eaten in perhaps 20% of households; after the campaign it was closer to 70%.
Ads do work, if you do them right. People go for what they’ve heard of over what they haven’t.
Repetition brings familiarity and familiarity leads to trust for the vast majority of humans. It is the reason that campaign signs works, why brand names are so valuable, and why popularity tends to increase exponentially when it works.
Most ads are just intended to get you to remember the thing they are selling.
Well, this abstract says it’s about 20% effective over not advertising but this is a meta analysis and isn’t focused exclusively on internet ads.
The baked in biases being that the authors are “a German chaired professor of marketing at the European University Viadrina in Frankfurt (Oder), Germany” and his research assistant.
It kinda is a necessary evil, if you want free content at least. Especially for a website like youtube where you need to host millions of large videos 24/7. That shit ain’t cheap, and even google can’t make money out of thin air. Not that I’m defending youtube or anything, charging $8 a month for premium lite but still giving you ads is insane. Paid services should never have ads.
My problem isn’t with ads, but rather the type of ads used. Like I said a moment ago, I don’t think paid services should ever have ads of any kind. But for free websites, a few side banner ads are fine in my book, while ads in the middle of a page or popup ads or video ads (especially unskippable ones) are a no-go. Essentially anything that doesn’t interrupt what I’m doing is usually something I’m okay with.
It’s going to take a big cultural shift to get enough people to pay content creators through subscriptions to compete with ad-driven models.
Eventually YouTube’s hubris will cross the line where enough people will just assume the ads are so bad it’s not worth trying to watch a video. As somebody with technical means and no tolerance for ads I’m astonished more people aren’t there yet.
How much do we need to pay though? Most content creators I see have their patreon around $7 CDN/mo. Add even a couple and you’re now at the cost of a streaming subscription with much more content. I would have no problem paying content creators if the fees were more reasonable, but right now I only subscribe to a couple.
Should a creator’s patreon drop in price to $1 or $2 a month, or should the viewer pay a small fee per view? What new monetization system would make sense where the consumer doesn’t have an unaffordable pile of subscriptions, but the creators still get paid a fair rate for their effort?
Nebula seems pretty cool, it’s basically a bunch of YouTubers mirroring their youtube content and making original videos for a paid streaming service with no ads. That’s one way of doing it
LBRY was an interesting experiment but it ultimately relied on their shitcoin for the financial side.
Yeah. I use Nebula and go out of my way to watch there whenever possible. The app isn’t great, but I still recommend it.
That $7/myth also likely involves 30% platform fee surcharges. If there were more Peertubes and similar federated or community-owned models the fee could lower as more money goes directly to the creators.
If there was an easy solution more people would be doing it already. Just food for thought.
Some creators advertise Nebula, a paid-only service that is co-owned by the creators they host. Ethically and for viewing experience it’s one of the best ways to run such a platform but they will remain limited in size for several reasons.
i know what im about to do is beyond the pale on lemmy but here it is anyway. for youtube, they have to spend money to host the content and deliver it. you can pay a subscription fee to enable them to do that. they have ads on there for people who expect free shit forever
Are these “we all” people you talking about are in the same room with us right now? I don’t really think that would apply to all of us.
firefox and ublock origin.
All these sites monitor engagement, they walk the line between maximum ads and users. If we decrease the users, they’ll decrease the ads to try and keep us.
LOL, nah. If we decrease the users, they’ll increase the ads to try to compensate for declining revenue. They believe they have all the power and don’t give a fuck what we think.
Classic business death spiral. Same thing is happening in electricity providers everywhere. Prices too high, more people go to solar, reduces their demand (revenues), so they increase their prices to compensate… higher prices means more people choose solar, and around it goes.
They’ll just insert bots who’ll comment generic, soulless things to say instead. “OMG This product amazed me!” or “I cannot BELIEVE how nobody discovered this sooner!” all the while artificially inflating numbers.
The number of ads I had popping up while trying to read that article isn’t discouraging me from using adblockers.
This is actually one of my favorite websites to browse on desktop through my VPN and extreme DNS blocking solution. The console just fills with blocked content and JavaScript errors, it really warms my heart.
Lemme try and feel sorry for my cartoonishly rich tech overlords real quick…
also it seems too convenient for them for this to happen just after they removed ad blockers from chrome…
If the Google war on ad blocking meant the ad blockers accidently blocked something everyone wants its still Google fault.
Everything was fine until Google decided to change how everything works over and over again to get people to watch the awful ads they let on their platform.
Googlees don’t “let” ads on their platform. Ads are the entire reason for the existence of their platform.
They could hire some people to vet the ads.
A company taking responsibility for the ads they serve? That sounds like communism to me!
Didn’t age verification - also recently implemented - cause youtube views to drop?
Here’s a case of it very well explained.
No. It’s false news. Just someone panicked looking for a cheap reason.
It was the first thing most people assumed was the culprit, as it silently enabled Restricted Mode, but since the biggest difference came from Computer views, despite the age verification happening on all platforms, that is strong evidence against that having any impact
Not to mention most didn’t see a corresponding drop in revenue from views.
For those curious what “adblockers said really happened”:
[AdGuard] suggested that the issue may have been linked to popular community-maintained filter lists like EasyList and uBlock’s Quick Fixes.
A new filter rule added to EasyList on August 11, 2025 targeted telemetry requests thought to be tied to YouTube’s view attribution and analytics.
That rule remained in place until September 10, when it was temporarily disabled.
A similar change was added to uBlock’s Quick Fixes on September 10 and removed on September 17.
OK. I mean Fuck Alphabet anyhow, but this means a youtuber who relies on view counts for monetary income (I guess) would actually have reason to worry about adblockers?
Again, I’m not saying I’m against adblockers or even this particular feature. And I very well see what Google is doing here, trying to get their creators up in arms against adblocking. I just want to know if this is debunkable or if youtubers would have a genuine argument here.
I did not really understand above explanation. I guess I need it ELI5.
Basically Youtube instead of counting views via actual requests for the videos instead uses a separate call that essentially says “hey, someone watched this video”. All the ad blockers rather than use a hard coded list of URLs to block which would quickly go stale instead use one of a couple different 3rd party lists the most popular of which is EasyList. EasyList decided to block the URL that youtube uses to register views on the principal that it was a privacy violation because it not only registers “hey someone watched this” but also captures exactly who watched it which allows Google to track your viewing habits.
It wouldn’t matter whether it was intentional or not. Put simply, Google can continue indirectly punishing creators for tolerating adblockers then redirect blame, even though they could have easily separated the metrics from the advertising and telemetry endpoints that blockers filtered. This way they get their money either from unblocked ads or from creator’s reduced view counts, win-win for Google.
As an added bonus for Google, by ensuring view metrics get fucked up, it double punishes creators featuring sponsored content that rely on those metrics to determine how much the sponsor should pay them. Meanwhile Google could, in theory, sell ad placements attached to their own internal metrics that differ from the affected ones publicly visible.
So you’re saying Google packaged the viewcount that’s relevant to monetization into a 3rd party js data request instead of just counting the actual video’s views, and so manages to play content creators against privacy-conscious users?
Worthy of a Roman Emperor, that.
See that’s the fun part. Google is the ad company so it’s all 1st party data. Google can package the Trojan horse however they please, which why it’s such a fine line for the blockers to walk.
I kept up with the drama until about a week ago so what I’m saying here is the status from back then. Someone please add any new context if I’m missing any new developments:
From what it appeared, view counts dropped but ad revenue stayed the same. Even before this whole thing, YouTube pays out for ads watched (and clicked). Pay out was not dependent on raw view count for a long time, if ever.
This suspicious behavior of view count dropping but ad revenue staying the same is actually what tipped people off that the issue was adblock related. The fact that channels with a larger focus on a younger audience seeing less of a drop also helped.
Now those view counts dropping could still have an indirect, negative effect on ad revenue, if it, e.g. automatically leads to YouTube recommending their videos less prominently.
Reported view counts are also important for sponsorships as sponsored video payouts are often tied to hitting specific view counts, and even getting sponsorships and their rates are also typically conditional on view counts. So yes, even though it doesn’t directly impact ad revenue it still directly impacts total channel revenue for anyone that accepts sponsorships.
All that said, Google caused this entire mess by bundling their view counting in with their telemetry. If they just reported the raw download stats for the streams instead of trying to determine every last detail of who is watching the video (for all that juicy advertising data) this problem wouldn’t have happened in the first place.
I have a few YouTubers I like to support with views of all of their content. Because I want them to get the support, I watch their content on YouTube with no ad blockers.
Louis Rossmann says if you donate 1 dollar direct to the YouTuber you give them more support than a couple of years of watching ads. Keep using a adblocker and buy some merch for support.
I have bought merch, but not everyone has merch for sale. Also I don’t have much extra cash, and they definitely get money from views too, it’s why I advocate other people giving them views also. Also, one of the biggest income drivers for them are sponsorships, and you have to have high view counts to attract sponsors.
