SponsorBlock is unfortunate, as sponsorships are the “good” form of advertising. No invasive tracking or targeting, contextual targeting only, and generally vetted by content creators (as least far better than ads sold on exchanges).
I made SponsorBlock, and over the years working on it, I have been able to see how horrible some of the techniques people use are
Do you believe that sponsorships are worse that targeted digital advertising?
Do you believe there are any Youtubers who have acted ethically in accepting sponsorships?
> I made SponsorBlock, and over the years working on it, I have been able to see how horrible some of the techniques people use are
It seems somewhat hypocritical to pretend that SponsorBlock is an ethical reaction to bad sponsorships when the clear ethical response would be to simply not watch the content. To be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with SponsorBlock, but let's be honest. It's purpose is convenience, not any higher moral objective.
With podcasts, it seems people are now trying to get the worst of both worlds, with dynamic advertisements from a pool based on who you are + the ads are read out by the podcast creator. I can't say that either case is worse than the other, but they are bad for different reasons.
> Do you believe there are any Youtubers who have acted ethically in accepting sponsorships?
There exist some that have clear transitions, declare in the first sentence that it is a sponsor, repeat at the end that it is a sponsor, and say explicitly in the ad-read that it is not their opinion but a script. That is certainly less deceptive. But unfortunately, this is not usually consistent. Some of their videos will do it well, and some do it poorly.
> It's purpose is convenience, not any higher moral objective
With "full video" labels (https://blog.ajay.app/full-video-sponsorblock), I've started to delve into the fixing bad declarations world. Full videos don't skip anything, but just inform the viewer what to watch out for. I want to make a wiki-like system for organising more precise biases in the future as well, and allow people to know which where each opinion in a video comes from.
Another fact I'll point out is that we sometimes get complaints that certain sponsor sections are incorrect, even though they totally are correct due to them not knowing it is paid promotion. An example is dbrand, which pays many top tech people to randomly mention their name in reviews, usually without much disclosure.
> SponsorBlock is an open-source crowdsourced browser extension and open API for skipping sponsor segments in YouTube videos.
Again, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with using SponsorBlock, but I think it's absurd to claim it's a morally positive tool.
The thing that sparked the idea was a badly disclosed sponsorship. The saving time bits are great, and that's why there's more features now than just ads, you can skip intros too. However, I did start this explicitly due to being frustrated with the state of deception in the sponsorship world, and that remains my main motivation.
In the end, the motivation is not the tool as implemented.
(I assume from your message tone that you are not a fan of paying for the content, either)
If Nebula existed when I created SponsorBlock, would I have created it? Maybe not, but I think the existence of the tool should prove that people want to avoid this stuff, and more creators should take note and provide ways to at least pay to avoid it.
And, if your ads are still deceptive, allowing a privileged few to pay to avoid them doesn't solve that issue
After all, SponsorBlock doesn't address the deception or the parasocial nature you complained about elsewhere. It just hides the ads that the creators inserted.
Given that SponsorBlock also allows users to skip the segments where users are offered ways to pay (like Patreon), it also seems especially hypocritical to suggest that.
Again, I don't think there's anything morally wrong with using SponsorBlock, but I think you're fooling yourself if you think it serves some public good. It just removes the only privacy-preserving form of advertising available to creators and let's people consume their work without the inconvenience of watching the ads that pay for it.
No, I don't believe so, abd that's the fundamental disagreement
https://giveup.ajay.app/ here's some fun satire of taking that opinion to the extreme. How dare you steal from advertiser by not following through and buying their product :)
> Sponsorships encourage deception (tricking the user into not skipping) and building up parasocial relationships with the audience to abuse their trust, the worst of the influencer world
SponsorBlock doesn't address either of these points.
If the creator is truly deceiving the user to try to get them to watch an ad or building a parasocial relationship in order to increase the chances of conversion (which is your claim), then I don't see how continuing to watch their content minus the ads is any better for the user. Of course, that doesn't really matter because SponsorBlock has a different true purpose, to remove the inconvenience of watching ads.
Once again, I don't have a problem with SponsorBlock or using SponsorBlock to avoid ads. I think you're trying to rationalise your decision to build SponsorBlock by trying to claim it serves some moral good or higher purpose. Whether that's conscious hypocrisy or internalised self-deception is another matter.
Labeling something on a timeline, or skipping it, does prevent someone from deceptively convincing you to follow through with the action they want. If you have an idea on how to fix people's attachments to parasocial relationships, I'd love to hear it, as I think it's important as well. SponsorBlock does not, and cannot, solve every problem I have with the world.
b) Apart from the products you like, none of it is a good offer?
c) Are you sure this is true for all sponsors?
d) Is advertising ever justified in your mind?
Overall, I think you just don't like ads, so have decided to arrive at that conclusion. Your arguments don't seem to hold water.
As for the sponsor ads it is always things like hello fresh, vpn ads, ads for free to pay games, etc. You can argue that hello fresh could be a good deal for a very small selection of people[0], and VPNs might be fine if people didn't lie about what they can do but in general it is shit or actively harmful.
Think of it this way: if you are making the best make up brush, do you want to pay for a sponsorship or just send a few samples to channels that are likely to feature it? On the other hand if what you make is so-so you have to pay to be featured.
It wasn't because ridgewallet was so good everybody was showing it, it was because they were paid for it - and even if you want a wallet like that, you are the one who pays for all the marketing.
So to sum up: most products are not revolutionary, the few that are gets their own mention because they are revolutionary and so what is left over is either too expensive or not good enough.
[0]: disposable money and enough time to cook, but not too much time and/or not enough skills to make a dish from scratch.
I'm also talking about sponsorships, not Youtube ads (preroll, display, interstitial, etc). However, I don't watch the same channels you do, so I don't see the same sponsorships.
I have seen a Hello Fresh sponsorship, but never Ridgewallet or Raid Shadow Legends that someone else mentioned. I have seen sponsorships from electronics components companies, airlines, medical supplies companies, body armour, agricultural equipment, solar panel installers, a local newspaper, a local dairy, etc.
Edit: Funnily enough, I just heard my first sponsorship for a prescription hair loss medication - ads for prescription medications are illegal here (Ireland) so definitely a bad ad.
Unless you happen to be an Irish search-and-rescue medic who lives part-time on a farm (or have the same interests), you aren't going to see the same sponsorships. Your bubble may contain VPN and F2P games, but mine doesn't. Hence, making generalisations based on your own experience is not helpful.
In the end, I don't think there's anything wrong with using SponsorBlock, but I don't believe that you have an ethical motivation for using it. If so, the best course of action would be to simply avoid the channels/podcasts peddling the products you don't like. You use it for convenience, plain and simple.
Edit: I mean the products aren't usually vetted, they just make an ad saying how great it is, all the while most likely not having even tried it. How many YouTubers do you think actually played Raid Shadow Legends or used NordVPN?
The function of advertising is to intrude on your awareness, stealing attention from whatever it is you actually care about, in order to create a desire for something you were previously content without, in hopes of enriching the advertiser at your expense. Ads are a tax on your attention which hope to to take a toll on your pocketbook; they benefit advertisers by making everyone else's lives just a little bit worse.
In Seattle, billboards are forbidden (with a few grandfathered-in exceptions), but stores are still permitted to post signs. This seems like a reasonable compromise; labeling the contents of the building provides useful information, which seems beneficial enough to outweigh the advertising function of the sign.
I suppose brochures are fine if you go in and get one because you are curious; but someone walking down the street bothering people by handing them out at random would be an asshole.
Where do you feel the line is online, specifically in Youtube videos/podcasts, where SponsorBlock is effective?