California law forces Netflix, Hulu to turn down ad volumes

Technical and legal aspects of the CA law

• Commenters dig into the bill text and note it explicitly references the federal CALM Act and FCC guidance, which in turn relies on ITU BS.1770 loudness measurement standards.
• The loudness metric is based on integrated average over time, which can miss short but very loud segments; people wonder if this leaves room for gaming.
• Some dislike that the California bill weakens private enforcement (“backing down the private right of action”).
• There is uncertainty whether political ads are exempt.
• Several argue that matching ad loudness to content is a solved technical problem and claims of difficulty are disingenuous.

User experience and mitigation

• Many report that ads on Prime, Hulu, and YouTube are significantly louder than the program; others say YouTube overall is louder than streamers, while a few find it quieter.
• People describe reflexively grabbing remotes, muting, or using features like “night mode,” “reduce loud sounds,” or volume normalization; some want more fine-grained dynamic-range controls.
• Ad-loudness spikes are particularly hated when they wake people at night or interrupt tense scenes.
• Some note obnoxious app sounds (e.g., language-learning apps) as a parallel annoyance.

Do loud/obnoxious ads “work”?

• One camp thinks louder/more annoying ads are effective because they capture attention, are more memorable, and there’s research cited that high‑energy/loud ads keep viewers tuned in.
• Another camp argues the industry overestimates this effect due to poor or biased measurement (Goodhart’s law, overvaluing trackable metrics, ignoring long-term brand damage).
• Several individuals say they actively boycott products with intrusive or irritating ads, but others suspect such people are a minority.

Ethics and role of advertising

• Some call all advertising inherently manipulative and morally dubious, even “visual pollution.”
• Others push back, distinguishing between paid promotion and broader “making known,” and arguing that much advertising is mundane, sometimes beneficial (e.g., PSAs, arts funding, small businesses, nonprofits).
• A long subthread debates definitions of “advertising,” its necessity for most organizations, and whether participation in an ad-funded economy implicates everyone.

Law, regulation, and “online is different”

• Several see this law as exactly what regulation is for, given profit-maximizing duties and lack of market incentives to be considerate.
• Others lament that basic consumer protections had to be legislated at all.
• A broader critique: many protections (privacy, first-sale rights, content liability) were undermined once activities moved “onto computers,” with streaming and platforms escaping rules that applied in offline analogues.

Streaming ecosystem, adblocking, and piracy

• Many rely on adblockers, alternative clients (e.g., SmartTube), DNS blocking, or piracy; some defend these as morally justified, especially for families, while others just joke about it.
• Some reminisce about VCRs and cue systems that enabled automatic commercial skipping.
• A few want structural reforms: re-imposing separation between production and distribution, standardized non-exclusive streaming licenses, or easy consumer DVR/antenna bundles (noting Aereo’s legal defeat).
• There’s pessimism that California’s rule will be geofenced and not widely adopted, but some hope it will spread.