This is a small app that achieves surprisingly good podcast adblocking. It transcribes the podcast, identifies ad segments in the transcript, then creates a new version of the podcast without the ads.
This is something I would use - not to steal but so I could listen to certain podcasts for sleep. The host intros and ads for this certain podcast are terribly distracting from what is otherwise incredible content.
Other use case is relistening to old podcasts - about half the stuff I listen to is historical which lends itself well to a relistening 10 years later. The content may well be still relevant but the ads are surely not.
The other podcasts I listen to are current and mostly ad supported - this isn't great for them
I'm hoping now that Google Podcast moved to Youtube Music which can be added to Youtube Playlist, podcast listeners are going to figure out sponsorblock applies. I wonder if that's also why a bunch of my podcasts haven't migrated to Youtube.
The code is surprisingly short and compact. It looks as if if the classification could be adapted to extract "highlight" snippets from podcasts as well, which would be a usecase I would be interested in.
If this uses pydub which uses ffmpeg under-the-hood, I guess it re-encodes the .mp3s rather than "losslessly" snipping out frames of audio without re-encoding?
This is interesting as a technical PoC but also feels a bit unethical.
The moral case for ad blocking on the web seems pretty clear: online advertising is built on massive exploitation of user privacy, has horrible UX, and is often implemented so poorly that it tanks pageload performance. In short, I understand why people use ad blockers on the web.
Podcasts though? In RSS-based podcasting, which is what this tool targets, you're typically getting a reasonable quality audio ad, with limited tracking, targeted broadly at the category of people who might listen to a particular podcast; it's about as unobtrusive as advertising gets. Widespread circumvention of those ads could really hurt the ecosystem, which would be particularity frustrating given that podcasting appears to still be a viable space for small scale creators to do great things (e.g. San Charrington and the TWIML AI podcast)
TLDR cool demo but everyone should please think carefully about if or when to use this tool.
> with limited tracking, targeted broadly at the category of people who might listen to a particular podcast
Not so fast. Many podcasts are served by intermediaries. The same intermediary can then observe and collect an individual's listener preferences and create a more targeted profile.
The iOS podcast app Overcast shows you all the intermediary platforms a podcast goes through.
E.g. 99pi goes through Chartable, with Overcast flagging that it "may follow individual-listener behaviour across multiple shows or the web, often to track responses to ads.'
How about if I turn the volume down during ads, is that morally wrong?
Maybe I play ads at regular speed and volume, but I think about something other than the ads while they play, is that wrong?
Perhaps a truly ethical consumer would listen intently to every ad, rewinding every time their mind wanders, pausing the audio every few seconds to take copious notes.
Do you have other feelings that you consider important enough that they should cause me to think carefully about something?
If your media contains parts that you needed to be convinced by money to insert I'll probably skip it entirely, for me it's a signal that the material is produced for other reasons than your interests and passion, and there are many other people that don't make such compromises. Some of them put a price on the material, some don't. I might be willing to make a deal with you, but I do not want to be pulled into your deals with third parties.
I'd say the easiest comparison is that it'd be about as ethical as taking a VHS recording of a TV program and skipping through the old ad breaks.
Personally I don't see an issue with that; but even if you do, I'll also note that the overwhelming majority of companies that rely on Podcast/influencer ads in general have utter shite quality products. It's one thing to get a traditional radio ad break telling you about the current supermarket sales, it's another to hear the fiftieth VPN ad who is totally about convincing you that they're just for watching Netflix overseas, the twentieth food delivery company, bad earbuds manufacturers or shite like razor delivery companies and cast iron BBQ grills. To put it quite simply; there's a reason these companies aren't pursuing more traditional avenues and it's probably because they'd get undesired scrutiny if they did.
There are of course outliers, but the amount of false advertising for shoddy products compared to actually desirable shit is so low that the bar is below the floor.
Why do so many comments see not listening to / viewing ads as immoral?
Even if this will become the new norm, and there are fewer advertisers and people would make less money from it, this change could be very positive for the podcast ecosystem. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and the majority are without ads or rarely include ads. They are products of passion, and not full of fake testimonials about scammy expensive multivitamins or really bad mental health services.
Imho, the web was a lot better before Google and social media ruined the discoverability of small personal websites and blogs with great content, and replaced it with (nowadays AI-generated) blogspam and clickbait that is highly profitable, but ultimately worthless.
We will not return to the good old times with the web. In fact I believe that the genie is not only out of the bottle, but we actually created an automated Pandora's-box-opener in the current state of AI, compete with endless unboxing videos. But maybe we can go one step back with podcasts. I believe it would be worth a try.
I wish there was a reality where content creators understood that ads just don't work on some people. I understand that they need money, and I listen to the ads when I can't fast-forward through them, but it's a complete waste of time on me.
And I do have a desire to block ads in every single part of my life, I just don't practically go any further than regular uBlock origin in Firefox.
I'd actually rather pay for good podcasts than get intrusive ads.
Sponsorship money is to my understanding pretty much always paid beforehand; the marketer gives a sum of money and just for doing the ad read, the podcaster gets paid.
Actual payment on clickthrough/conversion rate is pretty uncommon. The podcaster isn't harmed by anyone skipping the ads.
Why wouldn't they get paid? You download the whole episode, it's not different than downloading it to your phone. They don't know if you listened to the ad any more than if listening via an app without this step inbetween.
Exactly. If you are going to use this, I believe you should also become a patron* of the podcasts you do it to. And, in that case, you often have access to an ad-free version anyway.
*or "tip" or whatever other monetization channel they have. Very few rely solely on ads.
A lot of podcast authors offer ad-free versions as a paid feed to members, which to me, invalidates the ethically dubious “but the podcaster has already been paid” argument.
They should be given the choice to do this.
I feel like the slippery slope is immensely dangerous as it always is with these products.
[+] [-] clay_the_ripper|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] davesmylie|1 year ago|reply
The other podcasts I listen to are current and mostly ad supported - this isn't great for them
[+] [-] Larrikin|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] maxglute|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] camelcat|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] longitudinal93|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] smcleod|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] draugadrotten|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] 0x2a|1 year ago|reply
https://github.com/mxpv/podsync
[+] [-] 0x2a|1 year ago|reply
https://github.com/ericmedina024/podcast-sponsor-block
[+] [-] pixelesque|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jdr23bc|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] xcavier|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] creativenolo|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mgrandl|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Animats|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jjayj|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] interblag|1 year ago|reply
The moral case for ad blocking on the web seems pretty clear: online advertising is built on massive exploitation of user privacy, has horrible UX, and is often implemented so poorly that it tanks pageload performance. In short, I understand why people use ad blockers on the web.
Podcasts though? In RSS-based podcasting, which is what this tool targets, you're typically getting a reasonable quality audio ad, with limited tracking, targeted broadly at the category of people who might listen to a particular podcast; it's about as unobtrusive as advertising gets. Widespread circumvention of those ads could really hurt the ecosystem, which would be particularity frustrating given that podcasting appears to still be a viable space for small scale creators to do great things (e.g. San Charrington and the TWIML AI podcast)
TLDR cool demo but everyone should please think carefully about if or when to use this tool.
[+] [-] asymmetric|1 year ago|reply
Not so fast. Many podcasts are served by intermediaries. The same intermediary can then observe and collect an individual's listener preferences and create a more targeted profile.
The iOS podcast app Overcast shows you all the intermediary platforms a podcast goes through.
E.g. 99pi goes through Chartable, with Overcast flagging that it "may follow individual-listener behaviour across multiple shows or the web, often to track responses to ads.'
[+] [-] panarky|1 year ago|reply
How about if I turn the volume down during ads, is that morally wrong?
Maybe I play ads at regular speed and volume, but I think about something other than the ads while they play, is that wrong?
Perhaps a truly ethical consumer would listen intently to every ad, rewinding every time their mind wanders, pausing the audio every few seconds to take copious notes.
[+] [-] portaouflop|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cess11|1 year ago|reply
If your media contains parts that you needed to be convinced by money to insert I'll probably skip it entirely, for me it's a signal that the material is produced for other reasons than your interests and passion, and there are many other people that don't make such compromises. Some of them put a price on the material, some don't. I might be willing to make a deal with you, but I do not want to be pulled into your deals with third parties.
[+] [-] jdr23bc|1 year ago|reply
In Canada the CBC's tax-funded podcasts with ads also feel a little dubious.
It'd be cool if you could have an personal AI purchase and curate content for you.
Edit: thinking a bit more about it I guess that's pretty much what YouTube premium is.
[+] [-] askl|1 year ago|reply
I'm not getting a hellofresh subscription anyways even if I hear an ad for it.
[+] [-] Terr_|1 year ago|reply
Also ad-networks as an unaccountable vector for malware.
That said, I agree that audio in a podcast doesn't have that same problem, outside of a Snow Crash scenario.
[+] [-] phito|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] noirscape|1 year ago|reply
Personally I don't see an issue with that; but even if you do, I'll also note that the overwhelming majority of companies that rely on Podcast/influencer ads in general have utter shite quality products. It's one thing to get a traditional radio ad break telling you about the current supermarket sales, it's another to hear the fiftieth VPN ad who is totally about convincing you that they're just for watching Netflix overseas, the twentieth food delivery company, bad earbuds manufacturers or shite like razor delivery companies and cast iron BBQ grills. To put it quite simply; there's a reason these companies aren't pursuing more traditional avenues and it's probably because they'd get undesired scrutiny if they did.
There are of course outliers, but the amount of false advertising for shoddy products compared to actually desirable shit is so low that the bar is below the floor.
[+] [-] fnordian_slip|1 year ago|reply
Even if this will become the new norm, and there are fewer advertisers and people would make less money from it, this change could be very positive for the podcast ecosystem. I listen to a lot of podcasts, and the majority are without ads or rarely include ads. They are products of passion, and not full of fake testimonials about scammy expensive multivitamins or really bad mental health services.
Imho, the web was a lot better before Google and social media ruined the discoverability of small personal websites and blogs with great content, and replaced it with (nowadays AI-generated) blogspam and clickbait that is highly profitable, but ultimately worthless.
We will not return to the good old times with the web. In fact I believe that the genie is not only out of the bottle, but we actually created an automated Pandora's-box-opener in the current state of AI, compete with endless unboxing videos. But maybe we can go one step back with podcasts. I believe it would be worth a try.
[+] [-] nolongerthere|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jdr23bc|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] youcantcook|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] shoulderfake|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewstuart|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] INTPenis|1 year ago|reply
And I do have a desire to block ads in every single part of my life, I just don't practically go any further than regular uBlock origin in Firefox.
I'd actually rather pay for good podcasts than get intrusive ads.
[+] [-] noirscape|1 year ago|reply
Actual payment on clickthrough/conversion rate is pretty uncommon. The podcaster isn't harmed by anyone skipping the ads.
[+] [-] pragmatick|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] klunger|1 year ago|reply
*or "tip" or whatever other monetization channel they have. Very few rely solely on ads.
[+] [-] shortformblog|1 year ago|reply
A lot of podcast authors offer ad-free versions as a paid feed to members, which to me, invalidates the ethically dubious “but the podcaster has already been paid” argument.
They should be given the choice to do this.
I feel like the slippery slope is immensely dangerous as it always is with these products.
[+] [-] AlexeyBelov|1 year ago|reply