757
YouTube’s anti-ad blocking test gets even pushier with a new timer (www.androidpolice.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
338 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 29 points 3 years ago (8 children)

Yeah, almost exclusively either Us-centric and not even available where I live, or so gosh darn expensive that I just will never use the stuff advertised (looking at you, magic spoon)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [+] 49 points 3 years ago (7 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Linus's video on their sponsors gave them way too much benefit of the doubt for scummy practices I would have dropped a company for

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    To be fair a lot of us here on Lemmy are likely to be more principled or have staunch opinions on companies and products - we've abandoned the orange R, and likely centralised social media for one thing.

    From my POV, Linus seems to tone down his views in videos, and his writers are the ones doing the research for the video rather than him. He's a lot more critical of companies on the WAN show from what I've seen

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Doesn't really matter if he is critical on one segment but not so much either. Or that the blame is shifted to the writers. But, I guess it's just to say whoever it is sponsored segments are not to be trusted by default, and best being ignored.

    Like even pro athletes end up shilling and using products that end up hurting them despite being in the 1% in their field like Lonzo Ball and his crappy shoes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago*

    My first impression for anything on YouTube is untrustworthy spam. Don't matter who it is. It's just the reality of paid sponsorships, and anyone being paid is going to generally talk up the positives, and talk up how much integrity they have. It's not just a YouTube thing either. I assume the same for celebrity endorsements even if it is in an area they are an expert in like sports, since product they use isn't the quality that reaches consumers. Sometimes even the products they use is crap and ends up hurting them. Example Lonzo Ball and the shoes he endorsed.

    It's just general good skepticism towards the marketing machine. Nobody is to be trusted when it comes to what they are paid to shill.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent