this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
703 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

59298 readers
4551 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If that were true they'd have restricted YouTube to logged in people.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago

What? They are trying to get rid of people with ad-blockers, not random by-passers that view 5/5 ads.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Could you explain that? Don't views or engagements count if you're not logged in?

[–] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I mean if they really didn't care about random visitors and cared more about making people watch ads. There's a very simple way to accomplish that, they only let you watch if you're logged in, and give your account a temp ban if you're blocking ads. But since they're not doing that they obviously see some value in anonymous visitors.

[–] victorz@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

I'm thinking anonymous visitors are harder to track, and ad-watching farms are probably a thing too, I imagine.

I'm guessing the value is simply a semblance of goodwill, to not be as transparent about their ad-watching mania. Maybe?