I tried not to block ads, I would let the preroll go and usually not skip it.
I started skipping ads when they started getting long. I recall some were several minutes long at times.
I started leaving videos part way through when there were mid-roll ads, and those got long enough that I'd often forget what I was even watching.
I started blocking the ads outright when I would be watching a relaxing video, and a very loud mid-roll ad would blow out my goddamn eardrums.
Fuck you YouTube. You abused your users, you chased off good content creators, and now you're offering people no carrot and all stick. How about you offer to match the volume of the ads to the videos, limit the length of ads to something reasonable, and nicely tell viewers that you are making ads less annoying and that unblocking the ads helps pay the content creators.
I used to make animations for YouTube, which weren't monetized because I hate ads, and one day they copyright struck me for some very provably public domain music, but the way they did it was to insert ads into my video without my consent so they could monetize them to send the money to the scammer who flagged me. So I just deleted my entire account, fuck them.
if they're anything like cable ads, they actually make the ads louder than the regular programming on purpose to try to make sure you hear it if you tune out or just walk away. no relaxed, unfocused watching for you!
Lmao "you purposely made your stuff shit. Now, if you offered a basic service without all the shit, I might pay for that."
Bruh, you don't pay for something because it's not shit, you pay for something because it's good. By paying for a basic service simply because it's not shit, you are incentivising them to enshittify their service and offer a premium "not shit" version, instead of actually improving their service.
It's just like the people who buy the new iPhone because it actually has a headphone jack this time.
They get away with this because people don’t use the alternatives. Odysee and Rumble are actually good alternatives. No, they’re not as good as YouTube, but they’re good enough. We just need creators to also upload to those platforms. Since YouTube keeps banning and demobilising them, this problem might solve itself.
Lmfao. I had literally never heard of Rumble. I opened up a private browser window and pulled it up for the first time ever.....the "Featured" was fucking Newsmax TV. Now obviously this isn't indicative of the whole site but damn that does not help your point when that's the featured for a brand new potential user
I’m not claiming it doesn’t have Newsmax on it. I’m claiming the service is solid. If you subscribe to people you care about (and you can find creators you like) it’s a good platform alternative. I’m the first to argue we need more YouTube creators to cross-post.
There are Nazis on YouTube, Reddit, and Lemmy. Why are you here? You are not automatically associated with Nazis just because they might use a platform. This is like saying veganism is evil because Hitler was a vegan.
Curious, how does monetization work on those platforms? The bigger "Content creators" typically will be making videos as a job, so to draw them you'd need a halfway decent way to monetize.
I imagine they'll eventually find a way to prevent us from blocking ads. Twitch TV for example has found some ways to make adblock useless.
It's a shame, and it's really just a side effect of google racing to the bottom of the adspace game. If ads weren't as cheap as they are today, they wouldn't be trying to maximize the amount of users who are forced to see advertisements.
I suspect ad blocking will always be an arms race. The server can only ask the client to play the ad, and then rely on the client to truthfully report whether it did so.
I'm sure they'll try to implement some type of DRM BS into the web that allows them. It's one of the good things about projects like Gemini. I used to think it was only good for the novelty of having a web alternative protocol.
No doubt Big Tech would lobby for Microsoft to use Windows to flag Gemini browsers as malicious and then run FUD campaigns against the Gemini protocol
Y'all remember when back in the day, Google's motto was "don't be evil." And then at some point somebody told them how much money there was in being evil and then they just pivoted to being a functional parody of a giant evil megacorporation from a cyberpunk novel? Cuz I remember that.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing - some percentage of people who do watch the ads will close the tab rather than read the prompt and answer it.
It’s only a matter of time before they start embedding them into the video like podcasts do and you won’t be able tell the difference between ad and video with software.
Oh, that's just brilliant! Instead of being interrupted by intrusive ads, I'm seeing videos of fluffy cats doing adorable and funny stuff all the time.
Bruh, your not gonna believe this, but the ducks at the park are free. if you use one of these, you can download all the ducks you want. I downloaded 9000 ducks so far.
To be fair, he was talking about live streams, as in watching people in real-time.
That can be a fairly different experience, especially since downloaders don't grab the chat at the moment. Also for unarchived streams, they can only be downloaded if you are aware and able to download at the time that the stream is still active.
I don't think they'll resort to that because that would mean getting rid of their own source of income. YouTube may not be getting ad revenue, but they still collect data and that's where the real value is.
to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:
yes it is, if you just look at direct expenses of running it. but you're overlooking the fact that it has enabled google to amass so much data(we're taking about 500 hours worth of videos being uploaded per minute) that they can train anything with it.
it's a service that's too big to fail. even whole governments, courts, and other institutions depend on it. so, I refuse to believe that YouTube will be non-existant because a sliver of users refuse to be profiled by invasive advertisements.
I haven’t watched live tv in almost 20 years because I refuse to sit through ads, and I definitely won’t sit through them on YouTube. If it was a banner or some thing on the page or the side of video that would be more acceptable, but sitting through ads to watch a YouTube video….there’s just no way.
I basically don't subscribe to any streaming services, but we got the family plan years ago and share it with a few friends and family that chip in a couple bucks each.
It's so affordable and the content on YouTube is second to none.
I'm so happy to help content creators earn a living content I genuinely care about rather than studios led by c-suite committees.
Lemmy users only want to use foss and not pay a single penny. How dare you suggest they pay a tiny amount to help pay for servers and the creators they're watching!
Some of us are legitimately broke (or on a very limited income). I get that some folk believe it's the capitalist way to force us to starve or succumb to the elements to demonstrate to others that humans have no value other than their productive worth to some plutocrat.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die!
Actually I expect some day the benefits that allow me to survive will end and I'll be another statistic.
But for now, the United States feels that I'm better off alive, though destitute, and unable to actually afford rent in California.
In the meantime, the millennials and zoomers I know don't expect to own anything ever. They eat whatever cheap food they can afford and pay rent and utilities and have a handful of trappings, and people write articles about how they're not into diamonds or owning real estate, or keeping a savings account. And one by one, they too are slipping through the cracks, usually when they slip down the stairs or get injured at work or catch a cold and don't have the strength to go into their job when their boss calls them desperate for a filler.
So regardless of what I expect, our establishment companies don't want to give anyone anything. They reward hard workers by working them harder.
I don't watch ads because they're antagonistic. I tend to avoid anything that features dark patterns because I'm susceptible to them, and they signal the product has been contaminated by its manufacturers with malicious intent.
I can't afford to pay 20€ per month--that's more than my whole monthly phone bill with something like 50 or 100 GB of data. Cost of living is high enough as it is.
I also lack the most valuable currency there is in one's life, one that you simply can't get more of. Time. So I block ads, which cost a lot of time, with extreme prejudice.
Ads are also bad for my mental health, they just irritate me, rack up stress and easily swing me into bad mood.
Lastly, I don't give a fuck about costing money to some multi-billion corporation. I don't care about them as much as they don't care about me; the corpos see me just as a resource to exploit as much as possible then move on to another one when there's nothing more to exploit, and I see the corpos exactly the same way. Call it mutual parasitism. Yes, I'm a parasite. And parasites are the most successful lifeforms on Earth.
Looks like they deleted their comment, but someone was saying watching ads is being "sub human".
Like homie there are literal wars going on rn and you think having an ad shown to you is a violation of your human rights. Then they turn around and call other folks privileged. Bruh lol.
You regard mental health issues as a character flaw in 2023? All of western civilization deals with intergenerational dysfunction and late stage capitalism. Of course we're stressed out.
Usually we only hear derision regarding mental health from the alt-right. Are you an alpha male? Are you a Brexiteer?
Educate yourself on the harsh conditions of the real world and grow some empathy.
Otherwise there will be no-one left to stand for you when the Leopards come to eat your face.
It feels like a culture war between corporations and the OG user base. They reeled us in and monopolized the market with the idea of "free". Now that competitors are few and far between, they want to change the game and reel in literal billions. I have absolutely no sympathy for their "lost profits". They are making enough as-is, and I have no problems saying that out loud.
It's an end of an era. I've been on reddit for over a decade, and on youtube for even longer. Crazy to think I might be giving up both of those services within a few months of each other. Feels like the internet is dying. Oh well. Maybe I'll go back to reading a shitload.
Yeah I could care less about people saying they'd watch ads of they were less intrusive. I'm not, I don't give a fuck about YouTube's sustainability who happened to still have major growth while I ran an AdBlock this entire time.
Maybe I'd consider paying if YouTube was the actual product I was paying for. Instead I get privacy invasive spying and my data being harvested, while am paying to do so. The product I'd want to pay for would have zero privacy invasive stuff involved. Which that isn't going to exist, so I'm never going to pay.
I don't really know how people can even use YouTube without ad blockers. Sitting through minutes of advertisement is not going to make me want to buy your product if I start mentally associating your product with frustration and annoyance. If these video ads are going to be repetitive and annoying, at least make them funny.
It seems like there is nowhere on the Internet to get away from ads currently, even here, where you thought you are safe, you are now reading an ad for my newest movie (you know the one), now also available on streaming!
Does anyone else remember back in the days of VCR, the networks wanted to push a technology that disallows you from fast-forwarding through ad breaks on the stuff you recorded?
Bruh, your not gonna believe this, but the ducks at the park are free. if you use one of these, you can download all the ducks you want. I downloaded 9000 ducks so far.
Google more than just kind of sucks. Like you said they haven’t done shit in a long time outside of making the internet more hostile with shit like this and their planned chrome-based anti adblock (a LOT of browsers run on chromium which would bring the same shit, Mozilla4lyfe)
Also, the google graveyard is just pathetic at this point. They truly can’t do shit outside of anti-user bullshit
Yeah I have an immich instance myself, and do plan on relying more on that as I max out my Google drive size.
The bigger issue I gave with that is remote backup still imposes a cost, and like you said you gotta know what you're doing to safely expose that to the Internet.
That is true. I only use mine locally, so it's not a problem. Although you can remote access via Tailscale for safety. It's quicker and easier than trying to set up remote proxies etc, about which I know nothing. Tailscale took 5 mins.
You don't have to pay Google a penny. I bought a quite cheap (50-60$) used but working Pixel 1 XL specifically for unlimited lifetime full-quality Google Photos upload.
You got me! Android came after maps in 2008. So that's not a great argument for recent development. Is pixel meaningfully different than Nexus? That would put it in 2010, or 2016 if you insist pixel is a big innovation.
But all "successes" are gonna be years old. You don't turn something like Chromebook into an overnight success. It takes years for an ecosystem to grow, users to find use cases, software revisions to polish the product, word of mouth, etc.
For comparison the Apple watch came out in 2015 and Airpods in 2016. What other successes has Apple had in the past 7 years? Maybe their AR thing will take off, but if it does it's probably 5-10 years from becoming a mass market product.
Android is developed by a consortium of developers called The Open Handset Alliance under an open source license. It is most certainly not a Google product, any more than Linux is a Canonical product. As in, they help develop it but it's not their product.
That is really playing with words... Android (the OS people run on their phone) was originally developed by a company bought by Google, which then funded it, made the overwhelming number of contributions to it for 19 years, does the marketing, certification plus all the non-open source elements that make the experience what 99.99% of users get everyday when they use their phone.
Ignoring everything after Google maps is ignorant as hell. I mean Google Photos is literally used by a massive percentage of iPhone users as well, because it's so good.
They didn’t walk it back. Pixel 1 still has unlimited storage.
And for some time, other devices did as well. And then they changed it. Would some other term than "walking back" describe "they offered a good deal to customers, and then changed it to a less good deal" better for you?
Do you like work for Google or something? Probably not. The handful of people I've met who work there aren't nearly this zealous about defending it.
Are you hanging your entire argument on the word "lifetime"?
From their announcement
Starting June 1, 2021, any new photos and videos you upload will count toward the free 15 GB of storage that comes with every Google Account or the additional storage you’ve purchased as a Google One member. Your Google Account storage is shared across Drive, Gmail and Photos. This change also allows us to keep pace with the growing demand for storage. And, as always, we uphold our commitment to not use information in Google Photos for advertising purposes. We know this is a big shift and may come as a surprise, so we wanted to let you know well in advance and give you resources to make this easier.
From this you can infer photos prior to June 21 2021 did not count against the storage. And now they do. Making the product worse for users.
Unpopular opinion: They should've just started charging big creators, kind of like Vimeo. Mofos be having youtube ads, sponsorships, built-in ads, courses, merch stores and patreon, and then they whine when youtube wants them to comply with advertiser's demands.
Unpopular Opinion: I don’t like ads as much as anyone, I’d rather YouTube monetises 1440p and 4k content instead of forcing people to watch ads. YouTube is an extremely expensive business to run, so it being free forever is completely unsustainable.
Google recently announced that it's podcast service is shutting down and moving to YouTube music, I don't want or need YouTube music so I've already moved to Podcast Republic, it has a few ads but they can be removed with a small one off payment. Google just wants to shove all it's users into YouTube and YouTube music for maximum ads and data harvesting.
2025: Search removed. Spend a decade crippling the function, then claim the usage data support getting rid of it!
2027: Expiring updates. Juice those watch numbers with a new artificial scarcity measure. Marvel Bullshit 49 Theatrical Trailer, available for seven days only! Featuring AI Robin Williams and a Mr B_ast guest ad!
2028: Web Environment Integrity inserted. Hand warmer sales crater as mobile viewers relish their new handset functionality.
Even if I have to sit through 30 seconds of silence, is there a way to redirect the ad to a ghost browser so I don't have to listen to something like grubhubs stupid video?
Reset Ublock orgin and update the filter and Ublock extension.
Disable other adblock extension if you have one.
Still you would be getting the popup once a while.
Yeah. This is becoming a problem with Google. Whatever they have created they just want to make it shit. Like everybody can't just pay and the amount of ads just makes it unwatchable.
On my firefox this rarely shows up though.
I use the privacy extensions uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes.
A good ad blocker would be one that will still load the page as intended but not display the ads. There would be no way for the site to know you can't see them. Blocking their activation just signals the site that you are using an adblocker.
Edit: I was thinking more of a VM sandbox like another comment said
In recent years there's been a shift from "white/black list" to "allow/block list" in an effort to avoid the stereotypes associated with those terms. I wouldn't say it's the new norm yet, but it's slowly becoming more popular.
I feel the use of master/slave to talk about technological concepts took power away from the original conotations of the words and by not using them its actualy making their effect more negative but what would i know.
Okay, I have to ask: outside of training, did you ever say NOtice To AirMen? I haven’t. It’s always NOTAM for me. They were nice enough to keep the acronym the same.
Yeah, basically the demand for hate outstrips the supply, so they decided that whitelist/blacklist is racist. Its just a power trip, being able to change peoples vocab with nonsense.
I remember when I tried setting up a server a couple decades ago and I didn't understand what the difference between a white and black list were. Made no sense to me.
Allow/block can't be mistaken. It's literally a better choice of words for many reasons.
Its honestly not a big deal, its just something to go rename for no good reason. At least for my job, it took about only a couple man-days to get every mention of blacklist/whitelist renamed and the code reviewed.
The bigger deal for me was master branch to main. Broke every pipeline script we had, broke our backups, and it caused not one but two outages in production. I guess its our fault for not making the branch name maintainable, but its never come up before and will never come up again. I honestly think between all the work we put in to that change, we spent a man-year on that. Thats before the production outages. Devops sucks.
Originally there was an X. Now I have to wait a few seconds before I can click the X.
This pause gives me time to think if I really need to watch this video, which more and more often is turning into a "not really".
Yeah. This is becoming a problem with Google. Whatever they have created they just want to make it shit. Like everybody can't just pay and the amount of ads just makes it unwatchable.
On my firefox this rarely shows up though.
I use the privacy extensions uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes.
I just wanted to say that uBlock works in removing the annoying warning. But it doesn't prevent youtube from blocking your access to videos. I'm right now in the situation that I can't watch any video until tomorrow, despite uBlock and stuff.
EDIT: Screw you, Google, now I'm watching youtube videos on VLC.
I'll look forward to reading this yet again next week, alongside all the entitlement in the comments section that seem to think running YouTube is free and recommending trash alternatives which have less than 1% of YouTube's content and don't even work.
Look this is different than pirating a game or bypassing a newspaper paywall. Watching content on YouTube simply costs money to YouTube. It's not like torrenting a game or movie, where while you haven't paid for the content, it didn't cost anything to the owner other than theoretical revenue. And it's not like bypassing a newspaper paywall, either, where the cost to the newspaper to serve you the story is practically negligible and the real costs are fixed and not related to how many people actually read the story.
Hosting video costs money and nobody can replace YouTube's massive library or realistically replicate their business model. I mean just look at image/gif hosting sites, they constantly go bust like Photobucket because storing everyone's pictures forever and for free isn't not a real business model.
YouTube needs to be paid for its gonna go the way of Photobucket.
Google has billions. YouTube pirates (can we call ourselves that yet?) are not going to bankrupt Google. In fact, Alphabet is spending more on their crackdown for sake of principle.
But Google is beholden to its shareholders, whose interests are diametrically opposed to that of the general public, so any gain by Google is a loss to the rest of us.
So any profit we can deny the Google machine remains instead in the economy, rather than vaulted in offshore accounts or used to further lock down the empires of the shareholders.
The day I can't watch YouTube sans commercials is the day I quit watching YouTube. And then it will get absolute-zero engagement from me.
So bring it. I do not need YouTube, and it needs viewers like me.
Good luck trying to talk about this with any amount of reason.
I'm a pirate, I understand what I'm doing is defrauding the tos of a mega corporation. I UNDERSTAND that and IM DOING IT ON PURPOSE.
But it seems like most of the people here are just going to hurl insults at you and call you a shill because you laid it out as "this cost money and the business needs money to even do it". This is how "free" services have always worked. They aren't a fucking charity.
I don't like ads so I do everything in my power to not see ads. Once they kill ReVanced and they start banned Google accounts, I'll just stop using YouTube unless I have a specific tutorial need.
YouTube doesn’t need to get paid (by the users watching their ads) they get paid through you, the actual product. What you watch what you click on what you search for, these are ALL monitizable. You think Google is protecting your data instead of selling it lmao
Furthermore how much is enough? They gonna keep adding more and more unskipable ads more pre/mid/post rolls, b-b-but the multi fucking billion dollar corpo needs to get pAiD!!!!
Youtube is squeezing one party really hard while pretending the other party doesn't owe shit to keep their monopoly. Start charging uploaders. If YouTube needs to up what they're earning because of things like bandwidth cost and what not make uploaders cover some of that cost. They're a business making money off of the platform so charge them.
This is the worst possible take I've heard this week, probably this year.
You would fuck over thousands of people, in addition to creating a bar of entry for anyone wanting to post a video or start a channel. Like I genuinely don't even know where to begin explaining how bad this take is.
My statement was far too broad for it to be "setting a bar of entry". YouTube is trying to squeeze its viewers for every drop they can without having uploaders and im obviously not talking about the little guy here shoulder any of that cost. Who in your mind is responsible for the cost associated with lets say a Mr Beast video? Is it Mr Beast or is it the viewer? I think it's both.
Hello, you must be new here. We don't like to be held accountable for anything and simply vocalize all our problems in an echo chamber where we collectively agree that other people should be held accountable instead. I hope this offers some context for the downvotes.
Meanwhile, at expensive private schools across the world, budding young neoliberals are being taught there is nothing more reprehensible than not milking every possible person of every possible penny.
But it's working on it. One pre-roll ad became two. Skippable ads became unskippable. Mid-roll ads were introduced. The algorithm was created to keep people watching, even if it set them on a path to domestic terrorism.
Now they're fighting ad blockers. Then they'll creep up the price of their paid tiers. Then they'll introduce ads into the paid tiers.
But don't worry, they promise it will only ever be a single, skippable, pre-roll ad, until it isn't.
You could hand over every cent you earn each week and they'll still show you ads and sell your data, because that's how greed works. If there is a penny to take, they'll take it.
The only thing we can do to defend ourselves from this practise is to make it clear that it will lose them more than it will gain.
The exact thing you're trying to shame people out of doing.
So they should just provide you a totally free service the costs them money because...? Are they still going to pay creators or do you want everyone to work for free to entertain you?
Petition the government to make a nationally owned and run video sharing site if that's what you want, don't be surprised when a capitalist company doesn't give you everything you want for free
People are generally okay with some ads. It's the quantity and aggressiveness and propensity for making the content worse by how they inject them into the videos that people don't like. Yes, their infrastructure costs money to run. But their service is only possible because of the people who make videos for them and the people who watch them. It's always been a give and take relationship. They've just been gradually deciding over the years to take more and more as their monopoly over a certain category of digital media has solidified and people have responded in the way people always do.
They knew what they were getting into when they acquired yt - or at least they should have known. I was a teen when yt started and even I could see how much of a money pit it would be. If G wants to throw wads of cash at it, fine. But I'm not propping up their fiscally-failed project with my own money.
You try to bait others into your poorly-crafted arguments when the core statement is stupid: there is no way yt would or will be profitable, full stop. That's it. And G waited way, way too long to try and monitize or start a subscription model, and now they have a sea of users who will not pay because 'it's always been free'. Through and through G fucked themselves with yt. They only have themselves to blame for the situation they now find themselves in.
It's an amazing video sharing site that's made the world better in so many ways, especially for small businesses and individuals. Just the access to video guides on how to repair things was a game changer on its own, breaking content creators out of the traditional media monopoly has been absolutely huge.
All this and the only cost is they occasionally show adverts, it's such a tiny tiny price
Something tells me that you either haven't been on yt since 2010, or you block their ads yourself. When I watch family members use yt, it's 3x 30-second back-to-back unskippable ads for a 5 minute video. If it's a longer video like a show episode, several randomly placed ads interrupt the video. It pains me.
It was acceptable when they did a toast overlay for 10 seconds at the bottom of a video during the midsection, that you could also click away with no delay if it bothered you. Now it's just like cable TV. (shoutout to yt TV which started at $35 and is now like $85 even if you don't want 90% of the content)
I wouldn't say it 'made the world a better place' either, as most content is redundant (lets have 75 short unboxing and first impression vids of this week's new phone!) or just pointless (reaction videos, prank videos...). It's a place for netizens to throw videos at and see if they get lucky.
I subscribe to 65 people, most of which have stopped producing content long ago (10y+). I have... 4 creators that I actually care about (2 of them I support through patreon, 1 via occasional merchandise, the other doesn't have any means of external support). If they relocated, I'd follow them. But if the rest (~25 active-ish) suddenly stopped, eh it's a bummer but no real loss.
Kinda akin to MySpace. Everyone in my circle knows about it and remembers it fondly in the early days, but now it's not really maintaining a pulse. It's just there, existing - and always craving more money.
I can agree with some of that but I really don't think it's akin to MySpace, I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't use YouTube for something, sure there are a million Iphone unboxing videos but there's also how to reach the awkward nut on my exact model car, literally everything I need to get started in my new hobby, and a million funny videos and interesting projects to relax to.
We might see something replace YouTube it it's better at video sharing, there's a way for creators to get paid and it can attract an audience but that's a big ask.
Agreed. However I still can't make a good faith argument as to why YouTube should be free. I too prefer not to pay but I never expected that to last forever and we've had a good run. I basically got a 15 year free trial and now they want me to pay for it - fair enough (I don't yet thought)
JW do you know how much money google actually makes off of your data?
I tried searching it and didn't find anything.
"Selling my data should be enough money to cover video bandwidth" is a common argument in this thread and was wondering if anyone actually had numbers to back that up.
Even that's misleading, because Google doesn't actually sell anyone's data. It's not like advertisers buy user data from Google. They have a product they want to advertise to a specific audience, and by choosing to advertise on YouTube, they can tell Google to only show these ads to their specific target audience, which YouTube can do, because they know who you are and what you're interested in.
Every single piece of apologism here casually pushes the idea that YouTube isn't profitable and their poor staff are starving.
In 2020, YouTube gleefully declared they were generating $5 billion in ad revenue every 3 months.
Even after their bandwidth, storage and incredibly well paid engineers, there's no way they're burning that much money on expenses. That's a billion dollars -- 1000 million -- per data center, per quarter. Enough to buy half of the CPUs leaving Intel's factories
They're not attacking ad blockers because they're struggling to make ends meet as they hack away in their garage.
They're doing it because there is no amount of money that can quench the greed of their shareholders.
It's actually still $25. You, the user footing the bill, isn't getting 6 people's worth of entertainment from it.
It's also $300 a year, plus taxes and fees and whatever else. If you're actually collecting on those 5 other users, every month, reliably and automatically (unless your time is literally worth nothing), then sure. But financially it's usually ill-advised to assume that 'if I can just get X others to do Y for Z time, then the price goes down'. Most fall into this, fail to capitalize on the opportunity, and end up spending equal or more compared to a single-user subscription.
Just be sure that the 'winner' in the situation is truly you, and you aren't being had by the thought of $5.
I am so tired of seeing this argument. I do not care about ads. That is not the problem. The problem is that YouTube thinks it is entitled to suck up every little bit of information about me and everyone within speaking distance of me just because I use their service. Do you want to run ads? Go for it. Do you want to get a little bit of basic information about your audience? Such as State or city? Honestly, that is fine. We need to establish a line, but I am not wholesale against any sort of information coming in. But that is not what they are doing. They give us these opaque TOS’s that allow them to take so much information and even sell it to third parties. It is out of control and we have no sense of what our data is worth or who is getting it. That is not OK.
If you want to do an on air read, I’m not going to skip it. If YouTube to run the occasional ad, I’ll watch it. But I will never, ever take down my VPN and ublock origin. I will never apologize for obfuscating my data a little bit. That is my right, and I will exercise it every time.
There is also one other very simple problem with this argument: you don’t have to run ads and steal all my data in order to make money. There are tons of other revenue models out there.
They pay some creators a pittance, and can revoke that amount and/or ability at any time, for any reason, even for reasons which are not listed in their terms, are factually inaccurate, or otherwise allows them to fuck the creator. Yt is like the waitstaff in the US, "yeah we pay them" ($3 an hour and the rest has to come from elsewhere to make ends meet).
Call me when you see a 90 second sponsor segment for SquareSpace in your next Netflix show.
YouTube does not have the authority to dictate what content creators include in their video, nor do they charge them for content they promote. The way in which YouTube generates revenue is through ads and subscriptions. Other streaming services do the same; the only difference is semantics.
I'll refrain from further arguments as the last hasn't been touch on: product placement is not persistent sponsorships or advertising. We only see this on YouTube as they do not pay creators a fair amount of the cut, and thus creators need to augment their yt income. We don't see any James Bond/007 movies where he has a flat tire and breaks the fourth wall to ask the viewer if they have AA service, as 'it is very useful and quite affordable' with a 20% discount voucher for opening weekend viewers, shown at the bottom of the screen. 'that's theaa.com, and tell them James sent you' before cutting to the next scene where the Aston is arriving at the hotel on a flatbed.
Merely driving the Aston without the AA bit, as a form of product placement, isn't exactly advertising in the same sense. There is realism and there is peddling out of necessity.
Vast majority of content won't fucking lose them money either, you hairless ape. They show ads even on unmonetizable content, i.e. they're using voluntary labor to make money.
The ads are just out of control. Back when it was one, maybe two, ads that were 10-20s long combined, I was willing to sit through it. Now there are almost always multiple ads concurrent, ads in the middle of the video, ads at the end of the video if it plays all thr way through, then ads again before the next video plays.
Bring it back to a single ad at the beginning of the video and give me a variety of ads so it isn't the same 3 over and over, and I'll sit and watch it.
You could build a successful service that brought in $1 million a month from happy users treated ethically, but there will always be an insatiable psycopath whispering "if we sold our user data, we could make a extra $100k each month".
So one ad becomes two. Users are tracked and the information sold. Algorithms are created to make services as addictive as possible, because "one more video" turns into "4 more ads".
However many apologists may post about poor, destitute Google being unable to feed their children because people aren't watching enough ads, we're absolutely correct to oppose that endless creeping.
There is always another sleazy way to manipulate people out of money. Companies need to learn to accept that their tens of millions of dollars profit are enough.
This. I used to pay for ytp family plan, way back when now. I had to skip a month as money was that tight. When I went to resub, they wanted an extra ~$5 a month, or like 25%, for the same content and features. No advertised changes in revenue sharing amounts.
I just pay creators directly now, via patreon and ko-fi. I don't care about yt, I care about a few creators. A few have stated that $1 is more than they make from yt per user per month. The revenue split is wild.
I don't care about ytm. Cut the cost in half and give more to the people that are actually providing content. Right now yt in my eyes is greedy and their additional price hikes solidify that.
You're joking, right? Creators make the whole video, Youtube only has to serve it. Also, not all creators get money from ads, so Youtube gets to STEAL from the little guys.
Difference is those other networks actually make content thats arguably seen as worth paying for. YouTube recycles user content and barely pays those users for it. Yes you can say that they deserve your money for servers and whatnot, but you can’t compare YouTube with those other services you mentioned and expect people to cry big crocodile tears…
They're not recycling anything though. They're hosting it. For 90% of therm they're not even charging the person to host it.
That's only possible because of ads, because it's not out of the kindness of their hearts. If there was not just value but negative value in Youtube, they would just shut Youtube down. Yeah, they make a lot more money than they need to maintain youtube. But they'd probably prefer to put that money towards the things actually making them money.
And yeah, it would be nice if some site existed that wasn't corporate driven, but most of them either have no content, or are just siphoning off of Youtube's content anyway.
And yes, you can say Youtube's (users) content, and it virtually makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Hosting the content is still required to do.
...That...doesn't bode well when they already have an alternative revenue option. It sounds like the adblock is hurting their revenue, and the alternative options aren't making it up.
Like that doesn't sound like they have a good reason to stop trying.
You will never get the sympathy for YouTube that you’re looking for. Not as long as the ads keep being so blatantly offensive and irrelevant, and while they continue to dangle their power over the users and content creators, who ultimately make them what they are.
No one cares about their hosting fees. You’re right that it’s expensive to keep the necessary servers and bandwidth, but you’re wrong that people will care because of the lack of care YouTube has shown. On the other hand, paying for something like HBO Max, for example, is a thousand times more justifiable. Look at the novel content they actually create. They also host that content, but that’s not why people pay.
I think people go to the ends of the earth to block ads that are offensive or irrelevant. Some people block any ad because of the history of offensiveness and irrelevance that ads from the majority of services have been. Ads can be those things for lots of reasons. Too many, too long, too often repeated, actually offensive, annoying, distracting, insulting to your intelligence, conflict of interest, against the grain of the content they infest, just to name a few… But instead of advancing that front, services like YouTube would rather just cram them down your throat, and then block you if you object. Ultimately YouTube needs users. Nothing works without the users. The ads only even make money because of the users…
They should be giving us massages and making our stay as pleasant as possible… instead they are power-tripping because they think we need their bullshit, but we don’t.
But i'm not being sympathetic, i'm being realistic. I just know the end-point is going to be bad and leave everyone disappointed. Google isn't going to try less, and none of the alternative sites popping up are remotely able to keep up. Many existed in youtube's time and either died out or they're still around and nobody cares.
I'm sure one day youtube will go away and take all the videos of 20 years with it, as well as leave people with nowhere to go just rubbing their heads trying to figure out where their content can go.
I will say though: Youtube needs users. Google doesn't need users. They can go to any of their other products if they ever determine youtube isn't worth it.
I dont use those particular other services to be fair. I do admittedly pay for Nebula, but to my understanding that is supposed to be more creator driven and is quite cheap anyway.
The thing about YouTube adblocking, at least for me, is that I dont think they owe me free and ad free content, or that they should be obligated to offer that for some reason. I fully understand that delivering video the way they do costs some amount of money even if not very much for an individual user, so blocking their monetization scheme means that using their website costs them money. However, I do not like or respect that company, I feel that their engagement algorithms have proven generally harmful to society as a whole by pushing people to more extreme content to improve retention, and I feel that their position as the primary place anyone thinks of to upload or view video not created by large scale studios is non-ideal. As such, when I do end up watching something there (content which, I might add, isnt even something that they create, just stuff independent creators are pretty much forced to upload there to be relevant as they are by far the largest game in town for their niche), I'm not bothered by blocking their ads, because I dont really care about Youtube's profit margin. If anything, if doing so actually harms them, in some tiny way, that is a bonus in my book.
Most importantly they are simping for Google and acting as though YouTube is an independent company with its own separate stocks and unaffiliated under the Google monolith.
If Google wasn’t so blatantly malicious in their advertising practices then I would gladly pay for YouTube premium. However, their current business model of “take any and every bit of data on them to sell more product” is morally repugnant. Subsequently, I feel no shame in blocking ads and using invidious to avoid giving them even a cent of revenue.
I know but ... YouTube belongs to YouTube, and I'm sure google is already making tons of money selling/using the data of all their users so...
I would not have a problem with one or two ads, but they often put three or more annoying ads per video.
Yeah, you can tell by the replies how much this forum is filled with entitled children and hipster anarchists.
That and by how anytime Google is mentioned here in literally any context, the top comments are all about how much people hate Google. Could be an article about Google rescuing lost kittens, and people here will make up stories about how Google is doing it for some evil reason and it's a threat to the internet as we know it.
Anyone who tries to argue with me will be summarily blocked because I don't have the patience today. Thanks in advance for helping me populate my block list.
You and the other person's misrepresentation of the reason others are complaining about this are little more than complaining about other people complaining.
Dear YouTube, if anyone there ever reads this.
I tried not to block ads, I would let the preroll go and usually not skip it.
I started skipping ads when they started getting long. I recall some were several minutes long at times.
I started leaving videos part way through when there were mid-roll ads, and those got long enough that I'd often forget what I was even watching.
I started blocking the ads outright when I would be watching a relaxing video, and a very loud mid-roll ad would blow out my goddamn eardrums.
Fuck you YouTube. You abused your users, you chased off good content creators, and now you're offering people no carrot and all stick. How about you offer to match the volume of the ads to the videos, limit the length of ads to something reasonable, and nicely tell viewers that you are making ads less annoying and that unblocking the ads helps pay the content creators.
I used to make animations for YouTube, which weren't monetized because I hate ads, and one day they copyright struck me for some very provably public domain music, but the way they did it was to insert ads into my video without my consent so they could monetize them to send the money to the scammer who flagged me. So I just deleted my entire account, fuck them.
That didn't stop you from making cartoons, did it?
No I just went to Vimeo lol
if they're anything like cable ads, they actually make the ads louder than the regular programming on purpose to try to make sure you hear it if you tune out or just walk away. no relaxed, unfocused watching for you!
x2
Lmao "you purposely made your stuff shit. Now, if you offered a basic service without all the shit, I might pay for that."
Bruh, you don't pay for something because it's not shit, you pay for something because it's good. By paying for a basic service simply because it's not shit, you are incentivising them to enshittify their service and offer a premium "not shit" version, instead of actually improving their service.
It's just like the people who buy the new iPhone because it actually has a headphone jack this time.
NewPipr
They get away with this because people don’t use the alternatives. Odysee and Rumble are actually good alternatives. No, they’re not as good as YouTube, but they’re good enough. We just need creators to also upload to those platforms. Since YouTube keeps banning and demobilising them, this problem might solve itself.
Rumble is 100% fascist Nazi bullshit, not an alternative
If your feed is “100% fascist Nazi bullshit” may I suggest you watch less Nazi bullshit, and stop subscribing to them?
Lmfao. I had literally never heard of Rumble. I opened up a private browser window and pulled it up for the first time ever.....the "Featured" was fucking Newsmax TV. Now obviously this isn't indicative of the whole site but damn that does not help your point when that's the featured for a brand new potential user
I’m not claiming it doesn’t have Newsmax on it. I’m claiming the service is solid. If you subscribe to people you care about (and you can find creators you like) it’s a good platform alternative. I’m the first to argue we need more YouTube creators to cross-post.
Well, maybe they just don't want to be associated with Nazis.
There are Nazis on YouTube, Reddit, and Lemmy. Why are you here? You are not automatically associated with Nazis just because they might use a platform. This is like saying veganism is evil because Hitler was a vegan.
Curious, how does monetization work on those platforms? The bigger "Content creators" typically will be making videos as a job, so to draw them you'd need a halfway decent way to monetize.
They have ads, but I think YouTube pays better. Which I suppose is why creators stick with YouTube for now.
If you’re using uBlock Origin. Go to “Filter Lists” and Purge All Caches. That may help.
I imagine they'll eventually find a way to prevent us from blocking ads. Twitch TV for example has found some ways to make adblock useless.
It's a shame, and it's really just a side effect of google racing to the bottom of the adspace game. If ads weren't as cheap as they are today, they wouldn't be trying to maximize the amount of users who are forced to see advertisements.
I suspect ad blocking will always be an arms race. The server can only ask the client to play the ad, and then rely on the client to truthfully report whether it did so.
I'm sure they'll try to implement some type of DRM BS into the web that allows them. It's one of the good things about projects like Gemini. I used to think it was only good for the novelty of having a web alternative protocol.
No doubt Big Tech would lobby for Microsoft to use Windows to flag Gemini browsers as malicious and then run FUD campaigns against the Gemini protocol
Funny you say that:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/02/googles-plan-to-drm-the-web-goes-against-everything-google-once-stood-for/
Google is already testing it I think.
Y'all remember when back in the day, Google's motto was "don't be evil." And then at some point somebody told them how much money there was in being evil and then they just pivoted to being a functional parody of a giant evil megacorporation from a cyberpunk novel? Cuz I remember that.
It still doesn't stop queueing a few videos ahead of time and watching them though, let it play the ad to noone and just cut it out after
But then you'll get prompts for "What product did you just watch an ad for?"
"Drink verification can."
They already do this on the YouTube TV app
It's amazing how many times someone in this thread has joked about Google doing something absurd sounding only for it to already be true.
You have to be careful with that sort of thing - some percentage of people who do watch the ads will close the tab rather than read the prompt and answer it.
It’s only a matter of time before they start embedding them into the video like podcasts do and you won’t be able tell the difference between ad and video with software.
Timestamps can still be voluntarily marked for an auto-skip feature to jump throughthe ads.
Not if YouTube interjects the ad after uploading and the location is randomized.
Someone will create an extension to mute the ad and overlay it with suitably timed bite sized cat videos.
Oh, that's just brilliant! Instead of being interrupted by intrusive ads, I'm seeing videos of fluffy cats doing adorable and funny stuff all the time.
You can block twitch ads. I literally never see them. Use https://github.com/pixeltris/TwitchAdSolutions/blob/master/vaft/vaft.user.js with Tampermonkey.
Also, checkout S0undTV if you use android TV.
Will to be fair, Google is an ad company. We should have seen this coming.
Worst case scenario I think I'd just resort to downloading the videos to watch. Live videos is the challenge, but luckily I don't watch live streams.
Bruh, your not gonna believe this, but the ducks at the park are free. if you use one of these, you can download all the ducks you want. I downloaded 9000 ducks so far.
To be fair, he was talking about live streams, as in watching people in real-time.
That can be a fairly different experience, especially since downloaders don't grab the chat at the moment. Also for unarchived streams, they can only be downloaded if you are aware and able to download at the time that the stream is still active.
They'll start banning Google accounts, that'll stop quite alot of people just because of how many users use gmail or drive.
I don't think they'll resort to that because that would mean getting rid of their own source of income. YouTube may not be getting ad revenue, but they still collect data and that's where the real value is.
I just did the zap element thing on that warning. So far so good, except you can't scroll down.
I see this as an absolute win, since that means you don't have to read YouTube comments.
Lmao
Can we pin this?
I occasionally see ads on Youtube. I'm not sure if this is related.
...temporarily it might help
to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:
yes it is, if you just look at direct expenses of running it. but you're overlooking the fact that it has enabled google to amass so much data(we're taking about 500 hours worth of videos being uploaded per minute) that they can train anything with it.
it's a service that's too big to fail. even whole governments, courts, and other institutions depend on it. so, I refuse to believe that YouTube will be non-existant because a sliver of users refuse to be profiled by invasive advertisements.
I am much, much more likely to be willing to pay for Ublock than I am YouTube.
I haven’t watched live tv in almost 20 years because I refuse to sit through ads, and I definitely won’t sit through them on YouTube. If it was a banner or some thing on the page or the side of video that would be more acceptable, but sitting through ads to watch a YouTube video….there’s just no way.
You could subscribe
I basically don't subscribe to any streaming services, but we got the family plan years ago and share it with a few friends and family that chip in a couple bucks each.
It's so affordable and the content on YouTube is second to none.
I'm so happy to help content creators earn a living content I genuinely care about rather than studios led by c-suite committees.
Oh you sweet summer child
Lemmy users only want to use foss and not pay a single penny. How dare you suggest they pay a tiny amount to help pay for servers and the creators they're watching!
Some of us are legitimately broke (or on a very limited income). I get that some folk believe it's the capitalist way to force us to starve or succumb to the elements to demonstrate to others that humans have no value other than their productive worth to some plutocrat.
Heave ho, thieves and beggars, never shall we die!
Ya I know. I'm living pay cheque to pay cheque. If I can't afford something, I watch ads. It's simple.
Why do you expect everything free?
Actually I expect some day the benefits that allow me to survive will end and I'll be another statistic.
But for now, the United States feels that I'm better off alive, though destitute, and unable to actually afford rent in California.
In the meantime, the millennials and zoomers I know don't expect to own anything ever. They eat whatever cheap food they can afford and pay rent and utilities and have a handful of trappings, and people write articles about how they're not into diamonds or owning real estate, or keeping a savings account. And one by one, they too are slipping through the cracks, usually when they slip down the stairs or get injured at work or catch a cold and don't have the strength to go into their job when their boss calls them desperate for a filler.
So regardless of what I expect, our establishment companies don't want to give anyone anything. They reward hard workers by working them harder.
I don't watch ads because they're antagonistic. I tend to avoid anything that features dark patterns because I'm susceptible to them, and they signal the product has been contaminated by its manufacturers with malicious intent.
I can't afford to pay 20€ per month--that's more than my whole monthly phone bill with something like 50 or 100 GB of data. Cost of living is high enough as it is.
I also lack the most valuable currency there is in one's life, one that you simply can't get more of. Time. So I block ads, which cost a lot of time, with extreme prejudice.
Ads are also bad for my mental health, they just irritate me, rack up stress and easily swing me into bad mood.
Lastly, I don't give a fuck about costing money to some multi-billion corporation. I don't care about them as much as they don't care about me; the corpos see me just as a resource to exploit as much as possible then move on to another one when there's nothing more to exploit, and I see the corpos exactly the same way. Call it mutual parasitism. Yes, I'm a parasite. And parasites are the most successful lifeforms on Earth.
Oh no, some troll on the internet thinks I'm the one with issues. What will I ever do.
People out here being dramatic af.
Looks like they deleted their comment, but someone was saying watching ads is being "sub human".
Like homie there are literal wars going on rn and you think having an ad shown to you is a violation of your human rights. Then they turn around and call other folks privileged. Bruh lol.
You regard mental health issues as a character flaw in 2023? All of western civilization deals with intergenerational dysfunction and late stage capitalism. Of course we're stressed out.
Usually we only hear derision regarding mental health from the alt-right. Are you an alpha male? Are you a Brexiteer?
Educate yourself on the harsh conditions of the real world and grow some empathy.
Otherwise there will be no-one left to stand for you when the Leopards come to eat your face.
TIL watching an ad is being treated subhuman.
It feels like a culture war between corporations and the OG user base. They reeled us in and monopolized the market with the idea of "free". Now that competitors are few and far between, they want to change the game and reel in literal billions. I have absolutely no sympathy for their "lost profits". They are making enough as-is, and I have no problems saying that out loud.
Could you explain what you mean by that comment?
My privilege? You're expecting servers to pay for themselves without ads or subscriptions. Idiot.
It's an end of an era. I've been on reddit for over a decade, and on youtube for even longer. Crazy to think I might be giving up both of those services within a few months of each other. Feels like the internet is dying. Oh well. Maybe I'll go back to reading a shitload.
If YouTube premium was $4.99 a month it'd be worth a consideration. But then again adblocking is free and privacy respecting
Yeah I could care less about people saying they'd watch ads of they were less intrusive. I'm not, I don't give a fuck about YouTube's sustainability who happened to still have major growth while I ran an AdBlock this entire time.
Maybe I'd consider paying if YouTube was the actual product I was paying for. Instead I get privacy invasive spying and my data being harvested, while am paying to do so. The product I'd want to pay for would have zero privacy invasive stuff involved. Which that isn't going to exist, so I'm never going to pay.
I don't really know how people can even use YouTube without ad blockers. Sitting through minutes of advertisement is not going to make me want to buy your product if I start mentally associating your product with frustration and annoyance. If these video ads are going to be repetitive and annoying, at least make them funny.
It seems like there is nowhere on the Internet to get away from ads currently, even here, where you thought you are safe, you are now reading an ad for my newest movie (you know the one), now also available on streaming!
Does anyone else remember back in the days of VCR, the networks wanted to push a technology that disallows you from fast-forwarding through ad breaks on the stuff you recorded?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Holy crap
Piped is about to get another user
Why wouldn't they block Piped?
For the past few months, they have been rather aggressive with IP bans for Piped instances, yeah.
Oof
Bruh, your not gonna believe this, but the ducks at the park are free. if you use one of these, you can download all the ducks you want. I downloaded 9000 ducks so far.
If you're using UBlock Origin do the following:
Go to settings. Go to Filter Lists. Click purge all caches. Click update now.
That's it, this message should disappear entirely.
I haven't turned off ad-blocking in 20 years. That's because I "don't allow" companies to use my home and my computer as their place of business.
How did manipulation to make you buy specific shit become so accepted?
Google kind of sucks.
What was their last big success? Google maps? Pretty much everything they do lately is some combination of shitty or prematurely killed.
Google more than just kind of sucks. Like you said they haven’t done shit in a long time outside of making the internet more hostile with shit like this and their planned chrome-based anti adblock (a LOT of browsers run on chromium which would bring the same shit, Mozilla4lyfe)
Also, the google graveyard is just pathetic at this point. They truly can’t do shit outside of anti-user bullshit
UP FIREYFOX!
Android? Google Photo? Google Pixel? Google Pay? Google Apps? Chrome? Chromebook? Google Drive? Chromecast? Android Auto?
They launched a ton of successful stuff since Maps came out in 2005
Google photo sucks
What do you prefer using?
Immich is on a par with Google Photos, imo. It's self hosted though, so not for everyone.
Yeah I have an immich instance myself, and do plan on relying more on that as I max out my Google drive size.
The bigger issue I gave with that is remote backup still imposes a cost, and like you said you gotta know what you're doing to safely expose that to the Internet.
That is true. I only use mine locally, so it's not a problem. Although you can remote access via Tailscale for safety. It's quicker and easier than trying to set up remote proxies etc, about which I know nothing. Tailscale took 5 mins.
Does it? It's a fantastic service that works really well, whether it's worth the price or privacy is a slightly different conversation
You don't have to pay Google a penny. I bought a quite cheap (50-60$) used but working Pixel 1 XL specifically for unlimited lifetime full-quality Google Photos upload.
I personally love it. Being able to search "Tom at the beach drinking a cocktail" and get all the relevant pictures is magic.
You got me! Android came after maps in 2008. So that's not a great argument for recent development. Is pixel meaningfully different than Nexus? That would put it in 2010, or 2016 if you insist pixel is a big innovation.
Chromebooks are also a 2010 project.
Google pay I don't think is a success? Didn't they like relaunch it recently and shit it up by tying it to phone numbers instead of your Google account? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/10/google-pays-disastrous-year-continues-promised-bank-account-feature-is-dead/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/01/google-pay-hopes-to-recover-from-brutal-2021-with-new-leadership/ . Also the original release is 2011. Quite some time ago. But technically newer than maps!
Drive is 2012. Dang, got me. But that's still more than 10 years old, so my actual point seems to stand.
Chromecast is 2013, so maybe within this decade.
Auto is 2015 but I know nothing about it.
I guess I should've said "in the past 7 years" instead of exaggerating and saying since maps!
But all "successes" are gonna be years old. You don't turn something like Chromebook into an overnight success. It takes years for an ecosystem to grow, users to find use cases, software revisions to polish the product, word of mouth, etc.
For comparison the Apple watch came out in 2015 and Airpods in 2016. What other successes has Apple had in the past 7 years? Maybe their AR thing will take off, but if it does it's probably 5-10 years from becoming a mass market product.
Android is developed by a consortium of developers called The Open Handset Alliance under an open source license. It is most certainly not a Google product, any more than Linux is a Canonical product. As in, they help develop it but it's not their product.
That is really playing with words... Android (the OS people run on their phone) was originally developed by a company bought by Google, which then funded it, made the overwhelming number of contributions to it for 19 years, does the marketing, certification plus all the non-open source elements that make the experience what 99.99% of users get everyday when they use their phone.
Most of their innovation has been for developers it seems.
Edit for clarification: since Google maps
Ignoring everything after Google maps is ignorant as hell. I mean Google Photos is literally used by a massive percentage of iPhone users as well, because it's so good.
You seem to be unfamiliar with hyperbole, or maybe just didn't recognize it here.
Also they kind of enshittified Google photos by walking back the unlimited storage promise. Probably not the best project to point to for "Google doesn't suck" arguments.
They didn't walk it back. Pixel 1 still has unlimited storage.
You're insufferable. Whatever fits your agenda.
irony
It's not insufferable to call it insufferable behavior. That's not irony.
Ya because saying Google walked back on a promise when they didn't. Whatever lies to fit your agenda. Pixel 1 still gets unlimited backups.
https://blog.google/products/photos/storage-changes/
choke on it
edit: after being confronted with the evidence, this user started deleting comments, making the proof inaccessible.
unless you know where to look
https://lemmy.world/comment/4552382
And for some time, other devices did as well. And then they changed it. Would some other term than "walking back" describe "they offered a good deal to customers, and then changed it to a less good deal" better for you?
Do you like work for Google or something? Probably not. The handful of people I've met who work there aren't nearly this zealous about defending it.
Are you hanging your entire argument on the word "lifetime"?
From their announcement
From this you can infer photos prior to June 21 2021 did not count against the storage. And now they do. Making the product worse for users.
Adblockers are eventually just going to become undetectable because of this. Adblockers are about to get so much better!
ublock origin still blocking everything.
if only ads arent annoying and loud, i have no problems unblocking them. but damn, they're unbearable atleast in my region.
Unpopular opinion: They should've just started charging big creators, kind of like Vimeo. Mofos be having youtube ads, sponsorships, built-in ads, courses, merch stores and patreon, and then they whine when youtube wants them to comply with advertiser's demands.
YouTube is the cable tv of 2023
Advertisement is brainwashing and should be against human rights.
Unpopular Opinion: I don’t like ads as much as anyone, I’d rather YouTube monetises 1440p and 4k content instead of forcing people to watch ads. YouTube is an extremely expensive business to run, so it being free forever is completely unsustainable.
Suck my balls Google
Next tactic to stop adblocking: we will come to your house and break your fucking legs if you even THINK about installing ublock
Then a few days later ublock removes it
https://github.com/gilbsgilbs/NewPipeSponsorBlock
https://invidious.io/
Spread the word for non IT folks too! Fck up google! Google is evil!
See also, another attack from google: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Environment_Integrity
Google recently announced that it's podcast service is shutting down and moving to YouTube music, I don't want or need YouTube music so I've already moved to Podcast Republic, it has a few ads but they can be removed with a small one off payment. Google just wants to shove all it's users into YouTube and YouTube music for maximum ads and data harvesting.
Even if I have to sit through 30 seconds of silence, is there a way to redirect the ad to a ghost browser so I don't have to listen to something like grubhubs stupid video?
Reset Ublock orgin and update the filter and Ublock extension. Disable other adblock extension if you have one. Still you would be getting the popup once a while.
Eh, don't need YouTube that badly. I think we'll collectively figure out video distribution without em just fine.
Fuck youtube
Hold the line uBlock Origin. If YT becomes unusable, I'll find somewhere to binge-watch true crime videos at 3am.
Yeah. This is becoming a problem with Google. Whatever they have created they just want to make it shit. Like everybody can't just pay and the amount of ads just makes it unwatchable.
On my firefox this rarely shows up though. I use the privacy extensions uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes.
"allowlisted" topkek
Lmao, time for anti anti-adblock! 🤣 https://reek.github.io/anti-adblock-killer/
A good ad blocker would be one that will still load the page as intended but not display the ads. There would be no way for the site to know you can't see them. Blocking their activation just signals the site that you are using an adblocker.
Edit: I was thinking more of a VM sandbox like another comment said
#BoycottGoogle
More PeerTube please!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/
Been getting that lately after successfully avoiding it for a bit. Just not gonna use it directly anymore.
Someone please make an extension so it automatically redirects to piped.video or something else.
Do we really need a new post about this, with the same screenshot, every time it happens to someone for the first time?
I LOVE SUBSCRIPTION BASED SERVICES
Is this fake? I thought the term is whitelisted not allowlisted
In recent years there's been a shift from "white/black list" to "allow/block list" in an effort to avoid the stereotypes associated with those terms. I wouldn't say it's the new norm yet, but it's slowly becoming more popular.
Ah like the master/slave becoming server/client?
I still don’t like allow list though. Block list seems fine. Maybe access list?
I feel the use of master/slave to talk about technological concepts took power away from the original conotations of the words and by not using them its actualy making their effect more negative but what would i know.
Similar to that, yeah, although I think the master/slave thing started earlier. (It's a bit more blatant, tbf.)
I agree that allowlist doesn't roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but as long as it makes it obvious what the word means, I'll go with it.
I hate that.
With flying they changed NOTAM from notices to airmen to notices to air missions or something.
Calm tf down. Will they change Human to hupersons next? Man-made to huperson-made? GTFO here.
Okay, I have to ask: outside of training, did you ever say NOtice To AirMen? I haven’t. It’s always NOTAM for me. They were nice enough to keep the acronym the same.
I suppose that's a fair point.
If something so trivial upsets you so deeply in an attempt to make others feel more included, maybe you should look into yourself.
You should probably take your advice and calm down.
Talking with the people involved, at least in my experience, it is an unnecessary adjustment. Nobody "affected" gave a hoot.
Yeah, basically the demand for hate outstrips the supply, so they decided that whitelist/blacklist is racist. Its just a power trip, being able to change peoples vocab with nonsense.
the newer words make way more sense. They actually convey the concept
What makes no sense is the words “white” and “black” as referring to people. People are brown, all of them.
I remember when I tried setting up a server a couple decades ago and I didn't understand what the difference between a white and black list were. Made no sense to me.
Allow/block can't be mistaken. It's literally a better choice of words for many reasons.
Firefighter is the best of these.
I have joined the war on fire, on the side of fire.
What?
Fire fighters fight fire. Crime fighters fight fire.
The weird one is freedom fighters…
They are a trillion dollar company, they can afford to give some slack on this issue that maybe affects 5% of their users
Its honestly not a big deal, its just something to go rename for no good reason. At least for my job, it took about only a couple man-days to get every mention of blacklist/whitelist renamed and the code reviewed.
The bigger deal for me was master branch to main. Broke every pipeline script we had, broke our backups, and it caused not one but two outages in production. I guess its our fault for not making the branch name maintainable, but its never come up before and will never come up again. I honestly think between all the work we put in to that change, we spent a man-year on that. Thats before the production outages. Devops sucks.
At least I got paid to deal with it.
Originally there was an X. Now I have to wait a few seconds before I can click the X. This pause gives me time to think if I really need to watch this video, which more and more often is turning into a "not really".
I have yet to see anything like this with my adblocker.
This is why we use Frontends... NewPipe, FreeTube, Invidious, Piped, etc c: Otherwise the nuclear option; "mpv https://youtu.be/url"
Okay, I don't ever see this problem. Using Brave and uBlock origin in Firefox. Maybe just update your filters once in a while?
Fortunately I haven't gotten any warnings but my dad did last night. I cleared ublock's cache and updated the lists. Hopefully it works.
[Edit] Nope my dad is still getting warnings about ublock origin.
Yeah. This is becoming a problem with Google. Whatever they have created they just want to make it shit. Like everybody can't just pay and the amount of ads just makes it unwatchable.
On my firefox this rarely shows up though. I use the privacy extensions uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes.
This is only the 3764th post this week..
Remember when the hopper was going to be the end of free TV?
Streisand effect
Which browser is this?
"Used by billions woldwide"?
I love how a massive Internet company is trying to act like their service isnt on the internet and like they don't know what that means
🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️
Currently downloading all of my favorite YouTubers content ad free 🖕
I just wanted to say that uBlock works in removing the annoying warning. But it doesn't prevent youtube from blocking your access to videos. I'm right now in the situation that I can't watch any video until tomorrow, despite uBlock and stuff.
EDIT: Screw you, Google, now I'm watching youtube videos on VLC.
Do Pi-Holes work for this?
I've been using Brave browser with no issues
I'll look forward to reading this yet again next week, alongside all the entitlement in the comments section that seem to think running YouTube is free and recommending trash alternatives which have less than 1% of YouTube's content and don't even work.
See you next week!
Every day same post complaining about this..
Look this is different than pirating a game or bypassing a newspaper paywall. Watching content on YouTube simply costs money to YouTube. It's not like torrenting a game or movie, where while you haven't paid for the content, it didn't cost anything to the owner other than theoretical revenue. And it's not like bypassing a newspaper paywall, either, where the cost to the newspaper to serve you the story is practically negligible and the real costs are fixed and not related to how many people actually read the story.
Hosting video costs money and nobody can replace YouTube's massive library or realistically replicate their business model. I mean just look at image/gif hosting sites, they constantly go bust like Photobucket because storing everyone's pictures forever and for free isn't not a real business model.
YouTube needs to be paid for its gonna go the way of Photobucket.
Google has billions. YouTube pirates (can we call ourselves that yet?) are not going to bankrupt Google. In fact, Alphabet is spending more on their crackdown for sake of principle.
But Google is beholden to its shareholders, whose interests are diametrically opposed to that of the general public, so any gain by Google is a loss to the rest of us.
So any profit we can deny the Google machine remains instead in the economy, rather than vaulted in offshore accounts or used to further lock down the empires of the shareholders.
The day I can't watch YouTube sans commercials is the day I quit watching YouTube. And then it will get absolute-zero engagement from me.
So bring it. I do not need YouTube, and it needs viewers like me.
Good luck trying to talk about this with any amount of reason.
I'm a pirate, I understand what I'm doing is defrauding the tos of a mega corporation. I UNDERSTAND that and IM DOING IT ON PURPOSE.
But it seems like most of the people here are just going to hurl insults at you and call you a shill because you laid it out as "this cost money and the business needs money to even do it". This is how "free" services have always worked. They aren't a fucking charity.
I don't like ads so I do everything in my power to not see ads. Once they kill ReVanced and they start banned Google accounts, I'll just stop using YouTube unless I have a specific tutorial need.
Corpo shill alert
YouTube doesn’t need to get paid (by the users watching their ads) they get paid through you, the actual product. What you watch what you click on what you search for, these are ALL monitizable. You think Google is protecting your data instead of selling it lmao
Furthermore how much is enough? They gonna keep adding more and more unskipable ads more pre/mid/post rolls, b-b-but the multi fucking billion dollar corpo needs to get pAiD!!!!
Grow up
Does that boot taste good or something?
Everything has to be free; I won't pay a dime. If anyone tries to make money (aka any business), they are evil.
Youtube is squeezing one party really hard while pretending the other party doesn't owe shit to keep their monopoly. Start charging uploaders. If YouTube needs to up what they're earning because of things like bandwidth cost and what not make uploaders cover some of that cost. They're a business making money off of the platform so charge them.
This is the worst possible take I've heard this week, probably this year.
You would fuck over thousands of people, in addition to creating a bar of entry for anyone wanting to post a video or start a channel. Like I genuinely don't even know where to begin explaining how bad this take is.
But I don't want to pay and I want everything for free! Make somebody else pay for my enjoyment!
My statement was far too broad for it to be "setting a bar of entry". YouTube is trying to squeeze its viewers for every drop they can without having uploaders and im obviously not talking about the little guy here shoulder any of that cost. Who in your mind is responsible for the cost associated with lets say a Mr Beast video? Is it Mr Beast or is it the viewer? I think it's both.
Why the hell would someone go to all the trouble of filming and editing a video, which is also not a cheap process, then pay to have people see it?
They already are, by monetizing the content they didn’t create, and paying creators just a fraction of the revenue generated.
ITT: People upset that free things don't last forever.
Pay?
I am winning to pay for content I like. But using their propietary app? No thanks.
Then don't use it 🤷♂️
So I use NewPipe, FreeTube, MPV, etc. Until Google block them too, then I'll refuse to use YouTube at all.
Hello, you must be new here. We don't like to be held accountable for anything and simply vocalize all our problems in an echo chamber where we collectively agree that other people should be held accountable instead. I hope this offers some context for the downvotes.
Meanwhile, at expensive private schools across the world, budding young neoliberals are being taught there is nothing more reprehensible than not milking every possible person of every possible penny.
Not even child slavery.
The whole amazing service is totally free to use, you just need an occasional advert break it's hardly nestle or Nike level greed now is it.
Yeah I literally watch it all day for free, endless amazing content on every subject - I barely notice having to skip next every now and then
You could also subscribe and get no ads ever
Until they start doing tiers, just look at every streaming service for examples. They sure are.
Sure it is, it just hasn't had as long to mature.
But it's working on it. One pre-roll ad became two. Skippable ads became unskippable. Mid-roll ads were introduced. The algorithm was created to keep people watching, even if it set them on a path to domestic terrorism.
Now they're fighting ad blockers. Then they'll creep up the price of their paid tiers. Then they'll introduce ads into the paid tiers.
But don't worry, they promise it will only ever be a single, skippable, pre-roll ad, until it isn't.
You could hand over every cent you earn each week and they'll still show you ads and sell your data, because that's how greed works. If there is a penny to take, they'll take it.
The only thing we can do to defend ourselves from this practise is to make it clear that it will lose them more than it will gain.
The exact thing you're trying to shame people out of doing.
Man y'all really expect high quality, extremely diverse, and robust video streaming platform for free?!
YouTube gotta pay it's bills somehow. Why y'all ok with paying Netflix/prime/hulu or whatever but not YouTube?!
YouTube don't owe nobody free services. Get over it.
It’s google. They’re paying their bills just fine
Awww, poor little YouTube/Google/Alphabet, helpless and basically living on the streets, barely able to make ends meet.
literally laughs my fucking ass off
If it is so dire for the poor conglomerate, it could shutdown YouTube to cut costs.
crickets
That's what I thought.
Won't somebody please think of the CEO!? Spare a thought for the investment portfolio!
Exactly! Give the CEO their 9th Lamborghini and 7th country holiday mansion. They deserve it!
So they should just provide you a totally free service the costs them money because...? Are they still going to pay creators or do you want everyone to work for free to entertain you?
Petition the government to make a nationally owned and run video sharing site if that's what you want, don't be surprised when a capitalist company doesn't give you everything you want for free
People are generally okay with some ads. It's the quantity and aggressiveness and propensity for making the content worse by how they inject them into the videos that people don't like. Yes, their infrastructure costs money to run. But their service is only possible because of the people who make videos for them and the people who watch them. It's always been a give and take relationship. They've just been gradually deciding over the years to take more and more as their monopoly over a certain category of digital media has solidified and people have responded in the way people always do.
They knew what they were getting into when they acquired yt - or at least they should have known. I was a teen when yt started and even I could see how much of a money pit it would be. If G wants to throw wads of cash at it, fine. But I'm not propping up their fiscally-failed project with my own money.
You try to bait others into your poorly-crafted arguments when the core statement is stupid: there is no way yt would or will be profitable, full stop. That's it. And G waited way, way too long to try and monitize or start a subscription model, and now they have a sea of users who will not pay because 'it's always been free'. Through and through G fucked themselves with yt. They only have themselves to blame for the situation they now find themselves in.
It's an amazing video sharing site that's made the world better in so many ways, especially for small businesses and individuals. Just the access to video guides on how to repair things was a game changer on its own, breaking content creators out of the traditional media monopoly has been absolutely huge.
All this and the only cost is they occasionally show adverts, it's such a tiny tiny price
Something tells me that you either haven't been on yt since 2010, or you block their ads yourself. When I watch family members use yt, it's 3x 30-second back-to-back unskippable ads for a 5 minute video. If it's a longer video like a show episode, several randomly placed ads interrupt the video. It pains me.
It was acceptable when they did a toast overlay for 10 seconds at the bottom of a video during the midsection, that you could also click away with no delay if it bothered you. Now it's just like cable TV. (shoutout to yt TV which started at $35 and is now like $85 even if you don't want 90% of the content)
I wouldn't say it 'made the world a better place' either, as most content is redundant (lets have 75 short unboxing and first impression vids of this week's new phone!) or just pointless (reaction videos, prank videos...). It's a place for netizens to throw videos at and see if they get lucky.
I subscribe to 65 people, most of which have stopped producing content long ago (10y+). I have... 4 creators that I actually care about (2 of them I support through patreon, 1 via occasional merchandise, the other doesn't have any means of external support). If they relocated, I'd follow them. But if the rest (~25 active-ish) suddenly stopped, eh it's a bummer but no real loss.
Kinda akin to MySpace. Everyone in my circle knows about it and remembers it fondly in the early days, but now it's not really maintaining a pulse. It's just there, existing - and always craving more money.
I can agree with some of that but I really don't think it's akin to MySpace, I don't think I've ever met anyone who doesn't use YouTube for something, sure there are a million Iphone unboxing videos but there's also how to reach the awkward nut on my exact model car, literally everything I need to get started in my new hobby, and a million funny videos and interesting projects to relax to.
We might see something replace YouTube it it's better at video sharing, there's a way for creators to get paid and it can attract an audience but that's a big ask.
The entitlement around here and on Reddit is insane. Just stop using the service if the ads are too much. Or pay for the subscription
Corporate apologia 🙄
Do you work for free yourself? Is it completely unreasonable to expect money in return for your services?
Except Google is double dipping, making money off of your data while charging for the "privilege". Fuck all that
Agreed. However I still can't make a good faith argument as to why YouTube should be free. I too prefer not to pay but I never expected that to last forever and we've had a good run. I basically got a 15 year free trial and now they want me to pay for it - fair enough (I don't yet thought)
JW do you know how much money google actually makes off of your data?
I tried searching it and didn't find anything.
"Selling my data should be enough money to cover video bandwidth" is a common argument in this thread and was wondering if anyone actually had numbers to back that up.
Even that's misleading, because Google doesn't actually sell anyone's data. It's not like advertisers buy user data from Google. They have a product they want to advertise to a specific audience, and by choosing to advertise on YouTube, they can tell Google to only show these ads to their specific target audience, which YouTube can do, because they know who you are and what you're interested in.
Do the Google engineers work for free?
No. What's your point?
Then it sounds like everyone is being compensated just fine.
Just a reminder that blocking adblock is contributing to google engineers salary, so you're arguing to maintain the status quo and not disrupting it.
Every single piece of apologism here casually pushes the idea that YouTube isn't profitable and their poor staff are starving.
In 2020, YouTube gleefully declared they were generating $5 billion in ad revenue every 3 months.
Even after their bandwidth, storage and incredibly well paid engineers, there's no way they're burning that much money on expenses. That's a billion dollars -- 1000 million -- per data center, per quarter. Enough to buy half of the CPUs leaving Intel's factories
They're not attacking ad blockers because they're struggling to make ends meet as they hack away in their garage.
They're doing it because there is no amount of money that can quench the greed of their shareholders.
And there's you, grovelling at their feet.
If you want to argue, then make an argument.
I have YouTube Premium because I also use YouTube Music, so the subscription fee is worth it for me.
But if you don't use YouTube Music, it's far too expensive and tough to justify the cost for YouTube alone.
It's $25 CAD. You can add 5 family members. It's literally $5 per month.
It's actually still $25. You, the user footing the bill, isn't getting 6 people's worth of entertainment from it.
It's also $300 a year, plus taxes and fees and whatever else. If you're actually collecting on those 5 other users, every month, reliably and automatically (unless your time is literally worth nothing), then sure. But financially it's usually ill-advised to assume that 'if I can just get X others to do Y for Z time, then the price goes down'. Most fall into this, fail to capitalize on the opportunity, and end up spending equal or more compared to a single-user subscription.
Just be sure that the 'winner' in the situation is truly you, and you aren't being had by the thought of $5.
It's actually $5 when everyone pays me their portion.
In Canada we have this technology called e-transfer and automatic payments. No need to ask.
Not sure why Lemmy users are so angry about paying a few dollars for ad free entertainment.
So, you just reiterated what I said, which is weird and unnecessary but okay.
Yep. That's why I also pay for it. It's a reasonable price for a valued service. Moaners gotta moan.
I am so tired of seeing this argument. I do not care about ads. That is not the problem. The problem is that YouTube thinks it is entitled to suck up every little bit of information about me and everyone within speaking distance of me just because I use their service. Do you want to run ads? Go for it. Do you want to get a little bit of basic information about your audience? Such as State or city? Honestly, that is fine. We need to establish a line, but I am not wholesale against any sort of information coming in. But that is not what they are doing. They give us these opaque TOS’s that allow them to take so much information and even sell it to third parties. It is out of control and we have no sense of what our data is worth or who is getting it. That is not OK.
If you want to do an on air read, I’m not going to skip it. If YouTube to run the occasional ad, I’ll watch it. But I will never, ever take down my VPN and ublock origin. I will never apologize for obfuscating my data a little bit. That is my right, and I will exercise it every time.
There is also one other very simple problem with this argument: you don’t have to run ads and steal all my data in order to make money. There are tons of other revenue models out there.
they get all content for free though, unlike netflix etc.
They also pay content creators, so perhaps you will need to drill into a bit more detail instead of offering a factually inaccurate single-line reply.
They pay some creators a pittance, and can revoke that amount and/or ability at any time, for any reason, even for reasons which are not listed in their terms, are factually inaccurate, or otherwise allows them to fuck the creator. Yt is like the waitstaff in the US, "yeah we pay them" ($3 an hour and the rest has to come from elsewhere to make ends meet).
Call me when you see a 90 second sponsor segment for SquareSpace in your next Netflix show.
Oh boy, I have bad news.
Product placement is not a literal advertisement shoehorned into an otherwise unrelated media.
YouTube does not have the authority to dictate what content creators include in their video, nor do they charge them for content they promote. The way in which YouTube generates revenue is through ads and subscriptions. Other streaming services do the same; the only difference is semantics.
I'll refrain from further arguments as the last hasn't been touch on: product placement is not persistent sponsorships or advertising. We only see this on YouTube as they do not pay creators a fair amount of the cut, and thus creators need to augment their yt income. We don't see any James Bond/007 movies where he has a flat tire and breaks the fourth wall to ask the viewer if they have AA service, as 'it is very useful and quite affordable' with a 20% discount voucher for opening weekend viewers, shown at the bottom of the screen. 'that's theaa.com, and tell them James sent you' before cutting to the next scene where the Aston is arriving at the hotel on a flatbed.
Merely driving the Aston without the AA bit, as a form of product placement, isn't exactly advertising in the same sense. There is realism and there is peddling out of necessity.
The vast majority of content uploaded is never going to make them any money. They get free content but hosting it is incredibly expensive.
Vast majority of content won't fucking lose them money either, you hairless ape. They show ads even on unmonetizable content, i.e. they're using voluntary labor to make money.
Boo fuckin hoo. The poor multi billion dollar corporation, what will they ever do?
The ads are just out of control. Back when it was one, maybe two, ads that were 10-20s long combined, I was willing to sit through it. Now there are almost always multiple ads concurrent, ads in the middle of the video, ads at the end of the video if it plays all thr way through, then ads again before the next video plays.
Bring it back to a single ad at the beginning of the video and give me a variety of ads so it isn't the same 3 over and over, and I'll sit and watch it.
That's the way greed creeps.
You could build a successful service that brought in $1 million a month from happy users treated ethically, but there will always be an insatiable psycopath whispering "if we sold our user data, we could make a extra $100k each month".
So one ad becomes two. Users are tracked and the information sold. Algorithms are created to make services as addictive as possible, because "one more video" turns into "4 more ads".
However many apologists may post about poor, destitute Google being unable to feed their children because people aren't watching enough ads, we're absolutely correct to oppose that endless creeping.
There is always another sleazy way to manipulate people out of money. Companies need to learn to accept that their tens of millions of dollars profit are enough.
you watched a short video, now bend over and take it so daddy google can get another bonus, you entitled slut 🥵🥵
I wouldn't object to paying if:
This. I used to pay for ytp family plan, way back when now. I had to skip a month as money was that tight. When I went to resub, they wanted an extra ~$5 a month, or like 25%, for the same content and features. No advertised changes in revenue sharing amounts.
I just pay creators directly now, via patreon and ko-fi. I don't care about yt, I care about a few creators. A few have stated that $1 is more than they make from yt per user per month. The revenue split is wild.
I don't care about ytm. Cut the cost in half and give more to the people that are actually providing content. Right now yt in my eyes is greedy and their additional price hikes solidify that.
I think the price is very fair if you split the family plan with others
Also I think creators get a 55% cut for ad revenue which seems reasonable to me
You're joking, right? Creators make the whole video, Youtube only has to serve it. Also, not all creators get money from ads, so Youtube gets to STEAL from the little guys.
You realize that serving the video is incredibly expensive right? There’s a reason Lemmy doesn’t support video hosting
They also pay for hosting the thousands of videos from "little guys" that no one will watch
Cry us a river. I will find ways to block ads and tell people how to do it
Difference is those other networks actually make content thats arguably seen as worth paying for. YouTube recycles user content and barely pays those users for it. Yes you can say that they deserve your money for servers and whatnot, but you can’t compare YouTube with those other services you mentioned and expect people to cry big crocodile tears…
They're not recycling anything though. They're hosting it. For 90% of therm they're not even charging the person to host it.
That's only possible because of ads, because it's not out of the kindness of their hearts. If there was not just value but negative value in Youtube, they would just shut Youtube down. Yeah, they make a lot more money than they need to maintain youtube. But they'd probably prefer to put that money towards the things actually making them money.
And yeah, it would be nice if some site existed that wasn't corporate driven, but most of them either have no content, or are just siphoning off of Youtube's content anyway.
And yes, you can say Youtube's (users) content, and it virtually makes no difference in the grand scheme of things. Hosting the content is still required to do.
Ads aren't the only form of revenue for them, and historically, YouTube had been run at a loss for years.
...That...doesn't bode well when they already have an alternative revenue option. It sounds like the adblock is hurting their revenue, and the alternative options aren't making it up.
Like that doesn't sound like they have a good reason to stop trying.
You will never get the sympathy for YouTube that you’re looking for. Not as long as the ads keep being so blatantly offensive and irrelevant, and while they continue to dangle their power over the users and content creators, who ultimately make them what they are.
No one cares about their hosting fees. You’re right that it’s expensive to keep the necessary servers and bandwidth, but you’re wrong that people will care because of the lack of care YouTube has shown. On the other hand, paying for something like HBO Max, for example, is a thousand times more justifiable. Look at the novel content they actually create. They also host that content, but that’s not why people pay.
I think people go to the ends of the earth to block ads that are offensive or irrelevant. Some people block any ad because of the history of offensiveness and irrelevance that ads from the majority of services have been. Ads can be those things for lots of reasons. Too many, too long, too often repeated, actually offensive, annoying, distracting, insulting to your intelligence, conflict of interest, against the grain of the content they infest, just to name a few… But instead of advancing that front, services like YouTube would rather just cram them down your throat, and then block you if you object. Ultimately YouTube needs users. Nothing works without the users. The ads only even make money because of the users…
They should be giving us massages and making our stay as pleasant as possible… instead they are power-tripping because they think we need their bullshit, but we don’t.
You're right, people won't care.
But i'm not being sympathetic, i'm being realistic. I just know the end-point is going to be bad and leave everyone disappointed. Google isn't going to try less, and none of the alternative sites popping up are remotely able to keep up. Many existed in youtube's time and either died out or they're still around and nobody cares.
I'm sure one day youtube will go away and take all the videos of 20 years with it, as well as leave people with nowhere to go just rubbing their heads trying to figure out where their content can go.
I will say though: Youtube needs users. Google doesn't need users. They can go to any of their other products if they ever determine youtube isn't worth it.
not 90%, 100%. there are no hosting fees on YouTube for anyone. I could see being able to upload content requiring a subscription in future though
They’re one of the largest companies in world: they are the bills
I dont use those particular other services to be fair. I do admittedly pay for Nebula, but to my understanding that is supposed to be more creator driven and is quite cheap anyway.
The thing about YouTube adblocking, at least for me, is that I dont think they owe me free and ad free content, or that they should be obligated to offer that for some reason. I fully understand that delivering video the way they do costs some amount of money even if not very much for an individual user, so blocking their monetization scheme means that using their website costs them money. However, I do not like or respect that company, I feel that their engagement algorithms have proven generally harmful to society as a whole by pushing people to more extreme content to improve retention, and I feel that their position as the primary place anyone thinks of to upload or view video not created by large scale studios is non-ideal. As such, when I do end up watching something there (content which, I might add, isnt even something that they create, just stuff independent creators are pretty much forced to upload there to be relevant as they are by far the largest game in town for their niche), I'm not bothered by blocking their ads, because I dont really care about Youtube's profit margin. If anything, if doing so actually harms them, in some tiny way, that is a bonus in my book.
People out here are really dick riding YouTube lmao.
Most importantly they are simping for Google and acting as though YouTube is an independent company with its own separate stocks and unaffiliated under the Google monolith.
Poor Google. Such a small company struggling to get by.
Meh if YouTube died tomorrow there would be a competitor the next day. Google bought YouTube back in the day and there are already like platforms.
YouTube is highly profitable already.
If Google wasn’t so blatantly malicious in their advertising practices then I would gladly pay for YouTube premium. However, their current business model of “take any and every bit of data on them to sell more product” is morally repugnant. Subsequently, I feel no shame in blocking ads and using invidious to avoid giving them even a cent of revenue.
How much of their revenue is spent toward content generation?
I know but ... YouTube belongs to YouTube, and I'm sure google is already making tons of money selling/using the data of all their users so... I would not have a problem with one or two ads, but they often put three or more annoying ads per video.
Yes
😂 reading the replies to your comment is the fun part. Watching people lose their minds over a comment.
Yeah, you can tell by the replies how much this forum is filled with entitled children and hipster anarchists.
That and by how anytime Google is mentioned here in literally any context, the top comments are all about how much people hate Google. Could be an article about Google rescuing lost kittens, and people here will make up stories about how Google is doing it for some evil reason and it's a threat to the internet as we know it.
Anyone who tries to argue with me will be summarily blocked because I don't have the patience today. Thanks in advance for helping me populate my block list.
You and the other person's misrepresentation of the reason others are complaining about this are little more than complaining about other people complaining.