I read a report titled YouTube is now forcing Ads when videos are paused, sparking outrage among users. I was not aware of this change and for whatever it is worth, it does not affect my life. Despite not having a horse in this internet advertising race to the bottom, there were two quotes in the report which caught my attention because they touched on some of my pet writing subjects.
The first quote:
Google had begun testing these pause ads in 2023 with a select group of advertisers, finding them to be highly profitable and generally well-received.
Now the second quote:
Despite initial concerns, the ads were not considered intrusive enough to drive users away from the platform.
AlternativeTo distinguishes between “advertisers” and “users” in explaining that Google’s goal was to satisfy advertisers while not not annoying YouTube “users” to such an extent that said “users” looked for alternatives.
As a threshold matter, I do not like the term users. It makes people watching YouTube videos or engaging with writing or other media on the internet sound like alcoholics or drug addicts. Of course, I then go outside and see people stumbling down the sidewalk while watching videos or swiping through social media on their phones (sometimes under the influence of something – there is this one dude who frequents a nearby street and who camps out in the middle of the sidewalk making everything around him smell like an angry skunk while he stares at his phone, but I digress), so perhaps its accurate in many cases. I may not like the term, but it does seem apt for consuming content on, say, TikTok (which should be banned). In any event, because I encourage people to actively engage with good writing and media on the internet, I avoid describing my small audience as users and have taken to not thinking in terms of consumption. You, my fair reader, are a fair reader.
But let us set aside my squeemishness about describing people who read and watch things on the internet in language which suggests they need a 12-step program, even if it is often accurate. Is AlternativeTo making the correct distinction here? Why are the advertisers not the users? The advertisers are, after all, using YouTube to monetize the people who AlternativeTo describes as users. With the exception of YouTube Premium subscribers, it is the advertisers, not the users, who are giving money to Google (not to mention YouTube Premium only reliably spares people from one kind of advertising). What are they paying for? I suppose it is the users. Are the users really users or products? Maybe the users in AlternativeTo’s formulation are hostages – it is not as if there is a comprehensive YouTube alternative.
Again, the point of this article is not to weigh in on YouTube pause screen ads. Running YouTube is extraordinarily expensive, and, for whatever it is worth, I think YouTube provides something more valuable (video hosting with RSS feeds) than the vast majority of social media platforms and services.. A fair compromise may be tiered YouTube Premium offerings and ads on YouTube for everyone else without then tracking the YouTube users across the entire internet.
This would be more like how TV worked and probably still works (not that I have checked in recently – maybe network and cable television are watching people too) . What was the point of the article again? Oh right, now I remember – I was not really writing this to ponder whether the advertiser/user distinction in the article was correctly conceived. I was inspired for a different reason. Allow me to quote the key passage of the article for the second time:
Despite initial concerns, the ads were not considered intrusive enough to drive users away from the platform.
This line made me chuckle. The entire purpose of testing the lock screen ads was to see how annoying Google and the advertisers could make things while still accruing more benefit than loss. It is I’m not touching you: Focus Group Edition. Here I am running a website wherein I try to make things as pleasant as possible for my guests – going so far as to spend time making the site pretty while also keeping it lightweight and free of third party dependencies. Meanwhile my betters are out there seeing how annoying they can be while ensuring that their users, or products, do not get any bright ideas. Of course my betters are making a ton of money while I am running a site as a hobby, so what do I know?
(To Google’s credit, it is at least not touting pause screen ads as a pro-user (I prefer viewer) feature like EA is with its vague plan to add ads to AAA games.)
Despite my thinly veiled critiques of the entire enterprise being reported on by AlternativeTo, I do not think that being outraged at Google is particularly productive. I dare say that is something of a user or consumer response. One is far better off directing his or her internet energies (I say internet energies because people should also do goal oriented things like attend to their steps on a walk or take a journey to look at funny statues) toward being active web surfers. If you follow people on YouTube, by all means follow those people – but be active in doing so and think about what you are watching and why and how you are interacting with YouTube. You could, for example, subscribe to your favorite channel’s RSS feeds and watch the videos you enjoy without the algorithms (at least until too many people do that and Google sends YouTube RSS feeds to its ever-growing dustbin, of course). If you prefer to be treated as a guest than a product for sale to someone else, make a point of also patronizing sites that have writing or media you enjoy and that respect you as a visitor. The internet is a big place – if you dislike the big tech portals, take some initiative and find the internet that you actually enjoy.
