• lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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?

    • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

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