Vietnam bans unskippable ads

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Vietnam has introduced a rule requiring online video ads to include a skip button after five seconds, effectively banning long unskippable spots on platforms like YouTube and in mobile games. Commenters welcome the move as a rare example of regulation siding with users against increasingly aggressive, often scammy ad tech, but many predict platforms will respond by serving more frequent short ads or shifting ads into the content itself. The debate broadens into whether advertising is socially harmful or economically necessary, how free ad-supported services would be funded under stricter rules, and whether stronger regulation or user-side tools like ad blockers are the better way to restore a healthier digital environment.

Scope of the Vietnamese Rule

  • Applies to online video ads: a visible skip/close control must appear after 5 seconds.
  • Separate clauses restrict ads that harm “national security” or insult state symbols and leaders; some see this as the real political motive, others as just standard boilerplate.
  • TV is regulated differently: there are already caps on ad minutes per hour and rules on interrupting news or films.

Predicted Platform & Market Reactions

  • Many expect platforms (especially YouTube and mobile games) to respond with:
    • More frequent, shorter ads (e.g., chains of 5‑second skippables).
    • Longer sequences of rewarded ads where you must watch multiple 5‑second units to get in‑game rewards.
  • Some think this could push down CPMs and total ad revenue, leading to less “free” content or more paywalls; others say there is already an oversupply of low‑quality “content”.
  • A few suggest big platforms might simply scale back or exit Vietnam, given relatively low ad prices there.

User Experience & Dark Patterns

  • Extensive complaints about:
    • Tiny or fake close buttons, moving UIs, layout shifts that cause accidental clicks.
    • “Interactive” ads that force you to play a mini‑game before closing.
    • Progress bars that start fast then slow down, or 20+ minute “ads” masquerading as news or full shows.
  • Several argue skip behavior should be standardized and enforced at the platform level, not per‑advertiser.

Ethics and Economics of Advertising

  • Large sub‑thread on whether the world would be better without ads:
    • One camp: ads are psychological manipulation, manufacture fake needs, distort competition toward whoever buys the most attention, and act as a regressive “attention tax”.
    • Other camp: some advertising is genuine information and discovery (new products, local services, small businesses); without any ads, market entry and consumer choice would suffer.
  • Debate over alternatives: catalogs/directories, word‑of‑mouth, reviews, government or neutral “product directories”.
  • Disagreement on whether such systems can ever be truly non‑pay‑to‑play or “level”.

Adblocking, Subscriptions, and Creators

  • Many describe living essentially ad‑free via uBlock Origin, Pi‑hole/NextDNS, AdGuard, YouTube front‑ends, and SponsorBlock.
  • Counter‑arguments:
    • Adblocking removes funding from creators and ad‑supported services, potentially reducing what’s available for people who can’t pay.
    • Others reply that current ad‑funded giants are wildly profitable, and that users are justified in protecting privacy and attention.

Children, Mobile Games, and Regulation

  • Parents report mobile games with 30–60 second unskippable interstitials after every level, manipulative “IQ test” mini‑ads, and post‑purchase changes that push further IAPs.
  • Vietnam’s rule is welcomed as a small protection; some call for stronger global regulation, especially around children’s apps and scammy/fake products.