It's sad that such a thing needs regulation in the first place. In real life if a salesman is being inconsiderate, I'll go out of my way to avoid their sales and find someone else who is better mannered. But we don't seem to apply the same measure to ads. Ads can be brash, insulting and manipulative, and yet that doesn't seem to cause a negative outcome for them. Rather it appears such ads work better and now that's what everyone's pushing towards. Human psychology is such a weird thing.
We do apply the same measure, adblocking. Except since companies base their businesses on ads theres a cat and mouse game at play to ensure you pay them with your attention. I'm reminded of the scene in "Airplane" where the captain is fighting off sales people in the airport. I feel the same way about the Internet.
My earliest memory of adblocking is the VHS recorder or player skipping commercials similar today to SponsorBlock and other autoskipping methods.
I've noticed that I got Pavolved and whenever I hear things like "But first" or "This is where I'd like to tell you about" I immediately rush to the keyboard, expecting a sponsor segment I should skip.
During baseball games I've come to get annoyed when I hear the announcer stop talking and take a breath, about to change their tone of voice from conversational to formal so they can launch into one of the micro ad reads between pitches or at-bats.
It's the one type of ad/sponsor I can never block or mute, it's just too short/sudden. It's a 5-10 second read. Muting the tv for a whole 3-minute commercial break doesn't bother me.
It's not new. Probably one of the most infamous examples, is why red and white are associated with Santa Claus. That's because they are Coca-Cola's corporate colors, and they heavily advertised and gave away a lot of swag, back at the beginning of last century. If you look at older depictions of Saint Nick, he's usually wearing some green.
I get sick of ads designed to look like copy, and presented inline in stories. That's going to get a lot worse, as LLMs are probably excellent at customising marketing drivel to fit into legit content.
Brand-building is important [to corporations]. Things like what words TV presenters and actors use can be manipulated to reinforce a corporate glossary.
Whenever you see a couple of actors enjoying a beer in a TV show, you'll notice the bottle labels are usually turned away from the camera. If you can see the label, it was generally paid.
I used to work for a famous camera company. I would often see actors using our cameras, but with the name blacked out (sometimes, you could see the electrical tape).
Some German publishers used to to that for books too, apparently. I've heard at least of cases of it happening to Terry Pratchet and Iain Banks (possibly because they wrote SF/F, which as we all know is not real literature).
I doubt if the ads are working better. I suspect their measurement approaches related to ads effectiveness is wrong.
If we are just measuring viewing of an ad as positive, then obnoxious ads will be viewed and thought to be effective. But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative.
Unfortunately that's not how human attention works. Being annoyed (or really having any strong emotional reaction) causes the ad to have a stronger impression on your memory. Now pair that with "autopilot mode" while shopping and you have a desirable (for the business) outcome.
Sorry for the mini rant but... One of the things that annoy me about TV shows is that the pacing on shows that were designed for network TV with ads is so predictable you can know whenever a tense scene is going to have an interesting outcome or not.
Tension somewhere between the usual ad boundaries? Nothing's happening. Tension near the 7 or 10 minute boundaries (depending on 30 or 60 minute shows)? Something's gonna happen.
It makes TV shows predictable even when watched on an ad-free platform.
I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. In the end, platforms like Netflix and Hulu don't need to prove that a higher volume works, but perhaps their customers think that it works, and that is enough.
> I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior.
Or the alternative, you can track it therefore you assign a disproportionate amount of value to it versus the things that are harder to track.
I'd say the metric is simply "if it's suddenly louder than the content before, we have the users attention and eyeballs".
> But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative
In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;)
Frankly, if the volume is too high I think the annoyance would be mostly directed towards the entire service playing ads at all, not the maker of the individual ad.
is there a programmable tv that i can do something like this ?
i want to mute ads when i am watching espn plus. my current tv is fire tv. i guess i'd have to build a little robot arm that presses mute button on the remote?
> It’s modeled off a federal law passed in 2010 that caps ad volumes on cable and broadcast TV, but doesn’t apply to streaming services.
Why did that law not apply to streaming services in the first place? The internet was very much alive and kicking in 2010. Sure, streaming wasn't as prevalent as it is today, but it wouldn't have taken a lot of imagination to see the same problem would become an issue on the internet as well.
The Internet, and before it, computers, broke our legal system. There are loads of things that we decided were bad and banned, but "thing but on computer" or "thing but online" somehow were interpreted to be exempt.
For instance, there's a law banning video rental stores from sharing customer records, because it's obviously bad if private entities are allowed to collect and use potentially private information like media consumption habits. But movie streaming? Every detail about every piece of media you read or watch, when you watch, when you pause or bounce, every interaction and speck of attention catalogued and actively used to guide consumer behavior? That's fine actually, totally allowed.
How about copyright? Right of first sale dictates that you can do whatever you want with a purchased copy of some media, short of distributing copies. You can give it away, sell it, lend it out, modify it, make personal copies, whatever. But what about "media but on computer"? That all goes out the window. Oh, you don't own a copy, you just have a non-transferable limited license to view that media on a specific device for as long as the distributor doesn't change their minds. An insane legal fiction that magically nullifies hard-won rights.
The video store example is funny because iirc, it wasn’t until someone high up/very involved in government got bit by it. During Robert Bork’s failed Supreme Court confirmation, a reporter figured out he rented porn. Maybe it was something less raunchy / embarrassing than porn but either way, iirc, they got that law on the books fast after that….
The leak was inspired by Bork's opposition to privacy protections beyond those explicitly outlined in the constitution. [0]
On September 25, the City Paper published Dolan's survey of Bork's rentals in a cover story titled "The Bork Tapes". The revealed tapes proved to be modest, innocuous, and non-salacious, consisting of a garden-variety of films such as thrillers, British drama, and those by Alfred Hitchcock. [1]
The VPPA very much applies to online entities. Netflix can collect all the info it wants about you, but is very much limited in what it can share with external parties.
If anything, the law has given cover to shady walled garden business practices that would not have survived otherwise.
How about liability for publishers? New York Times publishes something damaging and false? Liable! YouTube publishes something damaging and false but since they did it with a computer they're immune!
My guess, having only looked at the text of the law but not into any of the legislative history, is that it was for technical reasons. This is based on how they worded it. The text says it applies to "a television station, cable operator, or other multi-channel video programming distributor".
This suggests they were thinking of linear television. Some searching tells me that in fact this is how it was apparently interpreted, for when it was applied to cable TV it was not applied to on-demand cable programming. It was just applied to the regular cable channels.
With linear TV everything is prepared in advance. When they sell an ad slot they know what program they will be showing at the time. There's plenty of time to match the ad volume to the program volume, which I suspect in 2010 could not be reasonably automated.
With on-demand you don't know what programs the ad will be in until the program actually starts. You could potentially be showing that ad in thousands of different programs at approximately the same time. If the level adjustments could not reasonably be completely automated this may have been impractical.
The US government typically doesn't try to preemptively regulate things (which is getting to be a problem as it now is too sclerotic to respond quickly to developments). Streaming services in 2010 were mostly paid subscriptions with no ads, I don't think the idea was on anyone's mind.
Do you manage to block ads from apps? I use streaming devices like Roku or an Android Projector. Do I need my own DNS server with a blocklist? Does it work?
Yes - I mean not "automatic", but user-adjustable. A video player which allows adjusting the dynamic range, just like you can adjust the volume, would be awesome.
> a video streaming service that serves consumers residing in the state shall not transmit the audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content the advertisements accompany
I was hoping we'd find a more precise definition. Couldn't this be gamed by editing a short (1 second, for example) segment of the intended content to have loud audio to artificially set the upper bound?
It does mention compliance with the CALM act, which lays out the precise methodology by which loudness will be measured [1]
> The Calm Act refers to A/85, and A/85:2013
specifies BS.1770 (specifically referencing BS.1770-1) as
the source of its loudness measurement techniques
(1770-2 did not exist at the time A/85 was finalized). So
BS.1770-1 currently serves as the yardstick by which
U.S. television programming will be evaluated for CALM
Act compliance.
> BS.1770 recommends the Leq(RLB) measurement
algorithm, where Leq(W) the frequency weighted sound
level measure, xw is the signal at the output of the
weighting filter, xRef is the reference level, and T is the
length of the audio sequence.
> The drawback of BS.1770 as originally conceived is that
it measures average loudness over the entire length of
content. This may be fine if the loudness is fairly
consistent over time. If not, a quiet section of content
may, as illustrated in Figure 5, bias the average level so
that it measures as acceptable despite having some
sections that are unacceptably loud.
For us, even regular YouTube is substantially louder than any streamer. If we want to watch something on YT than go back to Hulu/Netflix, we always have to adjust the volume. I don’t get it, why, why?
It's already spelled out in more detail in the FCC guidance which the legislation incorporates by reference. Backing down the private right of action is bullshit though.
Loud ads were a staple of TV commercials for cars and trucks. Probably to wake you up. The only time I ever have ads I mute the TV and look at the walls. I only see ads during local news broadcasts on OTA TV signal. I adblock on the internet and don't do subscriptions. I rarely see ads which is the right thing. Ads waste your time and 30 secs seeing an ad is 30 secs less you have to live.
There is no vaccine, no cure once you are exposed to content. Your house will be filled with 300,000+ things and it is impossible to find anything, the fastest way to get your stuff is again amazon same day delivery because you don't have the time to rummage through the hundreds of thousands of things!
I'm honestly surprised that somebody hasn't sold a bundle of a TV antenna, set-top box, and cloud storage for a DIY streaming service kind of thing. I'm aware of Plex and Jellyfin, but I feel like you could make the setup instant and painless even for non-technical users. All these problems we're seeing with streaming (content spread over many expensive subscriptions, unregulated advertising, disappearing/moving content) would be easily solved.
Plex, as a business, is already in a tough spot because it's mostly used to stream pirated media, and if they make too many overt moves towards making piracy easier, media companies might start going after them.
Thus all the stuff to haphazardly integrate streaming services. Selling it as a preconfigured kit might be risky.
The story about waking his baby is fucking stupid as shit. Then you would regulate any change in volume across the program not just transitions to ads.
Ummm...I dont like the 2nd derivative of volume during zombie movie jump scares, it frightens my kid, please limit that next, California!
It's sad that such a thing needs regulation in the first place. In real life if a salesman is being inconsiderate, I'll go out of my way to avoid their sales and find someone else who is better mannered. But we don't seem to apply the same measure to ads. Ads can be brash, insulting and manipulative, and yet that doesn't seem to cause a negative outcome for them. Rather it appears such ads work better and now that's what everyone's pushing towards. Human psychology is such a weird thing.
We do apply the same measure, adblocking. Except since companies base their businesses on ads theres a cat and mouse game at play to ensure you pay them with your attention. I'm reminded of the scene in "Airplane" where the captain is fighting off sales people in the airport. I feel the same way about the Internet.
My earliest memory of adblocking is the VHS recorder or player skipping commercials similar today to SponsorBlock and other autoskipping methods.
I've noticed that I got Pavolved and whenever I hear things like "But first" or "This is where I'd like to tell you about" I immediately rush to the keyboard, expecting a sponsor segment I should skip.
Also „Have you ever”.
During baseball games I've come to get annoyed when I hear the announcer stop talking and take a breath, about to change their tone of voice from conversational to formal so they can launch into one of the micro ad reads between pitches or at-bats.
It's the one type of ad/sponsor I can never block or mute, it's just too short/sudden. It's a 5-10 second read. Muting the tv for a whole 3-minute commercial break doesn't bother me.
Ads have become integrated into everything.
It's not new. Probably one of the most infamous examples, is why red and white are associated with Santa Claus. That's because they are Coca-Cola's corporate colors, and they heavily advertised and gave away a lot of swag, back at the beginning of last century. If you look at older depictions of Saint Nick, he's usually wearing some green.
I get sick of ads designed to look like copy, and presented inline in stories. That's going to get a lot worse, as LLMs are probably excellent at customising marketing drivel to fit into legit content.
Brand-building is important [to corporations]. Things like what words TV presenters and actors use can be manipulated to reinforce a corporate glossary.
Whenever you see a couple of actors enjoying a beer in a TV show, you'll notice the bottle labels are usually turned away from the camera. If you can see the label, it was generally paid.
I used to work for a famous camera company. I would often see actors using our cameras, but with the name blacked out (sometimes, you could see the electrical tape).
Some German publishers used to to that for books too, apparently. I've heard at least of cases of it happening to Terry Pratchet and Iain Banks (possibly because they wrote SF/F, which as we all know is not real literature).
https://gmkeros.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/terry-pratchett-and...
I doubt if the ads are working better. I suspect their measurement approaches related to ads effectiveness is wrong.
If we are just measuring viewing of an ad as positive, then obnoxious ads will be viewed and thought to be effective. But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative.
Unfortunately that's not how human attention works. Being annoyed (or really having any strong emotional reaction) causes the ad to have a stronger impression on your memory. Now pair that with "autopilot mode" while shopping and you have a desirable (for the business) outcome.
I don't mind ads in the beginning of movies, but I hate with my full heart all companies and products that interrupt a tense scene
Sorry for the mini rant but... One of the things that annoy me about TV shows is that the pacing on shows that were designed for network TV with ads is so predictable you can know whenever a tense scene is going to have an interesting outcome or not.
Tension somewhere between the usual ad boundaries? Nothing's happening. Tension near the 7 or 10 minute boundaries (depending on 30 or 60 minute shows)? Something's gonna happen.
It makes TV shows predictable even when watched on an ad-free platform.
I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior. In the end, platforms like Netflix and Hulu don't need to prove that a higher volume works, but perhaps their customers think that it works, and that is enough.
> I think there's so much snake oil in the ad business because it is indeed hard to measure the effectiveness of ads, in particular when shown in places where you cannot track the user behavior and correlate the ad with subsequent user behavior.
Or the alternative, you can track it therefore you assign a disproportionate amount of value to it versus the things that are harder to track.
This service problem is fixed like most media-related service problems. Sailing.
MPC has the ability to normalize volume in a video automatically.
I'd say the metric is simply "if it's suddenly louder than the content before, we have the users attention and eyeballs".
> But the emotional response would be the opposite (getting annoyed instead of getting interested). I think for the company placing the ad it is a net negative
In Advertising, "getting annoyed" is just a sub-metric of "getting remembered" ;)
Frankly, if the volume is too high I think the annoyance would be mostly directed towards the entire service playing ads at all, not the maker of the individual ad.
I remember that ads used to be louder on TV, too.
What stopped that, was that TVs and videotape machines looked for loud content, and used that to trigger ad-skipping.
is there a programmable tv that i can do something like this ?
i want to mute ads when i am watching espn plus. my current tv is fire tv. i guess i'd have to build a little robot arm that presses mute button on the remote?
> It’s modeled off a federal law passed in 2010 that caps ad volumes on cable and broadcast TV, but doesn’t apply to streaming services.
Why did that law not apply to streaming services in the first place? The internet was very much alive and kicking in 2010. Sure, streaming wasn't as prevalent as it is today, but it wouldn't have taken a lot of imagination to see the same problem would become an issue on the internet as well.
The Internet, and before it, computers, broke our legal system. There are loads of things that we decided were bad and banned, but "thing but on computer" or "thing but online" somehow were interpreted to be exempt.
For instance, there's a law banning video rental stores from sharing customer records, because it's obviously bad if private entities are allowed to collect and use potentially private information like media consumption habits. But movie streaming? Every detail about every piece of media you read or watch, when you watch, when you pause or bounce, every interaction and speck of attention catalogued and actively used to guide consumer behavior? That's fine actually, totally allowed.
How about copyright? Right of first sale dictates that you can do whatever you want with a purchased copy of some media, short of distributing copies. You can give it away, sell it, lend it out, modify it, make personal copies, whatever. But what about "media but on computer"? That all goes out the window. Oh, you don't own a copy, you just have a non-transferable limited license to view that media on a specific device for as long as the distributor doesn't change their minds. An insane legal fiction that magically nullifies hard-won rights.
The video store example is funny because iirc, it wasn’t until someone high up/very involved in government got bit by it. During Robert Bork’s failed Supreme Court confirmation, a reporter figured out he rented porn. Maybe it was something less raunchy / embarrassing than porn but either way, iirc, they got that law on the books fast after that….
The leak was inspired by Bork's opposition to privacy protections beyond those explicitly outlined in the constitution. [0]
On September 25, the City Paper published Dolan's survey of Bork's rentals in a cover story titled "The Bork Tapes". The revealed tapes proved to be modest, innocuous, and non-salacious, consisting of a garden-variety of films such as thrillers, British drama, and those by Alfred Hitchcock. [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork_Supreme_Court_nomi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bork_tapes#:~:text=On%20Septem...
The VPPA very much applies to online entities. Netflix can collect all the info it wants about you, but is very much limited in what it can share with external parties.
If anything, the law has given cover to shady walled garden business practices that would not have survived otherwise.
Last time I looked up the Bork bill, I read that it was extended to streaming sites during the Obama regime.
How about liability for publishers? New York Times publishes something damaging and false? Liable! YouTube publishes something damaging and false but since they did it with a computer they're immune!
you can be very much liable if you publish something damaging and false on YouTube
My guess, having only looked at the text of the law but not into any of the legislative history, is that it was for technical reasons. This is based on how they worded it. The text says it applies to "a television station, cable operator, or other multi-channel video programming distributor".
This suggests they were thinking of linear television. Some searching tells me that in fact this is how it was apparently interpreted, for when it was applied to cable TV it was not applied to on-demand cable programming. It was just applied to the regular cable channels.
With linear TV everything is prepared in advance. When they sell an ad slot they know what program they will be showing at the time. There's plenty of time to match the ad volume to the program volume, which I suspect in 2010 could not be reasonably automated.
With on-demand you don't know what programs the ad will be in until the program actually starts. You could potentially be showing that ad in thousands of different programs at approximately the same time. If the level adjustments could not reasonably be completely automated this may have been impractical.
This feature would take less code than your comment.
The US government typically doesn't try to preemptively regulate things (which is getting to be a problem as it now is too sclerotic to respond quickly to developments). Streaming services in 2010 were mostly paid subscriptions with no ads, I don't think the idea was on anyone's mind.
It was still niche. Government is slow to react and is paid off by lobbyists and more recently outright bribes..
Do you manage to block ads from apps? I use streaming devices like Roku or an Android Projector. Do I need my own DNS server with a blocklist? Does it work?
If the ad is embedded in the video DNS blocking does not typically work.
What I've been looking for in a player client is automatic loudness adjustment.
Even in the show itself, sudden loud bits just send me scrambling for the remote to bring it down to half or even quarter volume.
Yes - I mean not "automatic", but user-adjustable. A video player which allows adjusting the dynamic range, just like you can adjust the volume, would be awesome.
My AppleTV 4K’s “reduce loud sounds” and “enhance dialogue” features have made watching TV at night bearable again.
No pass one for accessibility so we can actually hear dialog in the shows.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
> a video streaming service that serves consumers residing in the state shall not transmit the audio of commercial advertisements louder than the video content the advertisements accompany
I was hoping we'd find a more precise definition. Couldn't this be gamed by editing a short (1 second, for example) segment of the intended content to have loud audio to artificially set the upper bound?
It does mention compliance with the CALM act, which lays out the precise methodology by which loudness will be measured [1]
> The Calm Act refers to A/85, and A/85:2013 specifies BS.1770 (specifically referencing BS.1770-1) as the source of its loudness measurement techniques (1770-2 did not exist at the time A/85 was finalized). So BS.1770-1 currently serves as the yardstick by which U.S. television programming will be evaluated for CALM Act compliance.
> BS.1770 recommends the Leq(RLB) measurement algorithm, where Leq(W) the frequency weighted sound level measure, xw is the signal at the output of the weighting filter, xRef is the reference level, and T is the length of the audio sequence.
> The drawback of BS.1770 as originally conceived is that it measures average loudness over the entire length of content. This may be fine if the loudness is fairly consistent over time. If not, a quiet section of content may, as illustrated in Figure 5, bias the average level so that it measures as acceptable despite having some sections that are unacceptably loud.
[1] https://www.telestream.net/pdfs/whitepapers/wp-calm-act-comp...
Off topic but I spot another one of those forcibly made acronyms
> Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation (CALM) Act of 2010
Sounds like political ones are exempt?
i've noticed this with amazon prime in particular it's got to be at least 25% louder than the actual content i'm watching.
YouTube does this too. We immediately fetch the remote and mute the damn thing. And I'm contemplating finding something that auto mutes for me.
For us, even regular YouTube is substantially louder than any streamer. If we want to watch something on YT than go back to Hulu/Netflix, we always have to adjust the volume. I don’t get it, why, why?
It's already spelled out in more detail in the FCC guidance which the legislation incorporates by reference. Backing down the private right of action is bullshit though.
Any way to block ads entirely on streaming services on a smart TV?
You can replace the YouTube app with SmartTube: https://github.com/yuliskov/smarttube
What about Netflix or Prime?
Instead of and app I use Brave browser. It blocks YouTube ads
Legalise the hunting of those working in the advertising industry.
This is trivial to geofence, so I expect this to be one of those that doesn't benefit the whole country.
Loud ads were a staple of TV commercials for cars and trucks. Probably to wake you up. The only time I ever have ads I mute the TV and look at the walls. I only see ads during local news broadcasts on OTA TV signal. I adblock on the internet and don't do subscriptions. I rarely see ads which is the right thing. Ads waste your time and 30 secs seeing an ad is 30 secs less you have to live.
I thought Netflix was a paid service?
That doesn't really mean anything, although some people seem to think that it's only free services that can be bad.
I would hope that some would have the good sense to stop paying for bad services, but here we are.
They bumped rates and have ad-supported tiers now.
As Amazon Prime and Disney+
It's good that regulation is being passed. People here saying it's "sad" that laws need to be made probably miss the point; this is the point of laws.
They exist to ensure things are done right when there's no other incentive to do them right other than "it'd be nice".
That's what Gov is for. You can't let billionaires behave as they want.
Watching ANYTHING is getting exposed to advertising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
There is no vaccine, no cure once you are exposed to content. Your house will be filled with 300,000+ things and it is impossible to find anything, the fastest way to get your stuff is again amazon same day delivery because you don't have the time to rummage through the hundreds of thousands of things!
I'm honestly surprised that somebody hasn't sold a bundle of a TV antenna, set-top box, and cloud storage for a DIY streaming service kind of thing. I'm aware of Plex and Jellyfin, but I feel like you could make the setup instant and painless even for non-technical users. All these problems we're seeing with streaming (content spread over many expensive subscriptions, unregulated advertising, disappearing/moving content) would be easily solved.
A company tried to do that, but centralising the hardware so you didn't need to hunt for reception. They were sued out of business quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aereo
Plex, as a business, is already in a tough spot because it's mostly used to stream pirated media, and if they make too many overt moves towards making piracy easier, media companies might start going after them.
Thus all the stuff to haphazardly integrate streaming services. Selling it as a preconfigured kit might be risky.
Something like Streamio + Realdebrid?
[dead]
TVs and streaming devices could, should, and sometimes do fix this as well. I’d pay a little extra for that.
Now do Duolingo. That ping is _so_ loud.
You can disable sound effects (as well as the overdone haptics) in the settings.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
The story about waking his baby is fucking stupid as shit. Then you would regulate any change in volume across the program not just transitions to ads.
Ummm...I dont like the 2nd derivative of volume during zombie movie jump scares, it frightens my kid, please limit that next, California!