• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

      When you take your comment to its logical end though your comment makes no sense, as hence there’s now no one to watch the videos and earn money from them doing so.

      You can’t force someone to consume your content, and if you earn money by people consuming your content, then the power is ultimately with them.

      Plus, all this discussion, we’re assuming that serving ads is the only way that Google can make money off you when watching the videos, which is not true. They can do the same kind of things they do with Gmail and make money from that.

      • cole@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

          That’s why I said logical conclusion.

          My bet would be the vast majority of people (what you call leeches) would eventually use ad blockers, as people in general usually do not like to watch commercials. (Again, speaking in endgame scenarios, AKA ‘logical conclusion’).