YouTube's plan backfires, people are installing better ad blockers
3 years ago by ijeff to c/technology
cross-posted from: https://lemdro.id/post/2883134 (!android@lemdro.id)
Their attention is your lifeblood, and you’re actively giving them reasons to look elsewhere.
👍
My attention is all the currency YouTube will ever get from me - and it should be enough. If I post videos to YouTube (for nothing in return) and I talk to people about videos I saw on YouTube or link them to videos - then I am a net gain for Google and they should treat me as such. If anything, they should be working (nicely) to try to get me to want to pay (or view ads) and just be thankful I'm there if I don't pay (or view ads). Instead they've chosen to work at ensuring everyone is so goddamn pissed off at their bullshit that they'd rather make it their full-time job to never give them another dime. Good job, Google! Smart!
Edit: Oh look, half a dozen lectures about how Google has to make money somehow. Hi there YouTube shills, I thought I would see you here.
Look I hate YouTube ads too, and ads in general, but let's say every user of a service is like you. Attention is all the currency they'll ever get from you, that's totally cool, absolutely. I'm totally that way too. But they've got to make money somehow, so if you're not the paying customer, someone else has to be.
I'm not saying it has to be ad sales either, but if we want a world in which we can use services for free without ads, we need to come up with an alternative way for them to make money. It has to come from somewhere, and by the bucketload.
If every user thinks like you, then it doesn't matter how many people you talk to or share links with, you're not a net gain on their service, you bring nothing to it.
Why should they, or anybody, be thankful that you honour them with your presence, if you contribute nothing of value? What makes you so entitled to use somebody's product for free with no strings attached?
Ads suck, I'm eager for us to move past them once we figure out an alternative that keeps products in business and us receiving things for free. But we can't deny the reality we live in right now either. Even huge companies like Google (who yes, do suck) have to make money to survive.
I think generally you will find that people of this opinion hold that it is unreasonable that we have privatized basically all of the internet infrastructure. These people tend to be in favor of expecting the consumer spends more on hardware for hosting, and enthusiasts, hobbyists, non-profits, and occasionally companies develop the software necessary to make the internet function, rather than companies just paying for tons and tons of warehouses of servers, and then just forcing the software to all become fucked up walled gardens while the actual utilities everyone rests upon is left to rot.
Huh, I wonder why people holding that opinion would be on Lemmy...
they've got to make money somehow
But they have been, and for years. All the years I've run a smartphone Google has harvested and profited from my data. From Gmail to Chrome (before I switched) to Maps, etc - they have profited from people's data at scale. So the argument that they need to make money somehow falls flat for me.
Also, if they charged like $2 a year to block ads, plenty of people would buy it. But like most things lately, the enshitification of our user experience continues. It's not enough for companies like Google to "make money" - it's never enough and their greed has no boundaries.
That's why you see people like us pushing back - enough is enough.
Google doesn't make money directly from harvesting your data, they make money from harvesting your data then showing you ads based on that data. So if you're running an ad blocker then they aren't making money from you (unless you pay them for stuff like subscriptions and apps). As ad blocking becomes more common they are definitely going to get more draconian to try to claw back that money (growth is infinite, profits must go up /s).
Also BTW Google probably makes more like $50 per user per year on average (looking at revenue and internet population) so they would never offer a $2/year ad block unless forced to by regulation.
Look I hate YouTube ads too, and ads in general, but let's say every user of a service is like you.
I understand the message about needing to fund services to exist, but that stance I feel doesn't always really work too well. Since if other users were like them then it'd also mean there might be a lot of stuff that doesn't exist anymore which could be a pro like microtransactions ceasing to exist and move to subscription model failing.
And for YouTube might be completely different where depending on their taste maybe click baits turned people away if the person hated them, so those don't exist. And long winded videos attempting to take advantage of the algorithm failed if they were someone who didn't like videos that wasted their time, and everyone is like them.
Reddit might still support third party apps if everyone was like them, and lemmy bigger. That's why if everyone was like them argument is just a weird one, since it turns minority actions into a majority and changes way too many things to focus on one singular thing.
YouTube creates no content and it’s reliant on people volunteering their time and talent to them. Fuck the idea that we need to pay google to access content they only host and don’t pay fairly for.
To answer your questions - users such as this bring something more valuable than ad money. They bring data. Google harvests data and metrics on users in a million ways, packages this up, and sells it for considerably more than they make on ads. In free services such as this, YOU are the product.
Ads suck, nobody wants to watch them, and they simply represent google maximizing shareholder value at every opportunity, as they are legally bound to do under American capitalism. YouTube ads are not a critical revenue stream that will make or break them.
Copy-pasting this from a comment I made a few days ago. I’m so tired of this misconception. Google’s business model literally disincentivizes selling personal data. The business model is built on selling targeted advertisements. Google wants to keep this data to itself because it gives them a competitive advantage in the ad space.
Selling your data would give competitors power in the marketplace. So yes, Google collects data and uses it, but no, Google does not sell your data. It sells targeting BASED on your data.
Very different, regardless of if it is any better.
I will quite happily pay a reasonable price for the privilege of avoiding ads.
I understand why people block ads, even though they are a a free tier, even if I don’t agree with it.
The fact that the cost of YouTube Premium almost doubled overnight is making me rethink my ethics, when my current subscription is up for renewal, I will be reassessing whether to cease watching YouTube, watch YouTube with ads or determine another way of supporting content creators.
I will quite happily pay a reasonable price for the privilege of avoiding ads.
I won't if the money goes to Google.
You sound like you'd pay someone "with exposure" for their work.
I pay for Premium now since it includes music streaming which is convenient to use. If they raise the price too much, I'll absolutely just go back to mp3s and deal with the ads on YouTube and just watch less content on there. $15 is about my cap before I do that.
Youtube produces almost none of their own content, instead they rely on other humans to create that content.
Use your ad blocker if you want, but stop treating youtubers as google employees (they’re not, they often have a much more frustrating relationship than you do) and start supporting them through other means.
To you, those people are just helping you waste your time. if that’s your real argument here, stop wasting your fucking time and do something else more worth your precious time, or start supporting content producers directly through non-youtube methods. Or just stop fucking watching.
Those people aren’t on youtube because they’re buying into corporate google dick-wrangling, they want to produce videos and have them get watched, and youtube is a place that hosts their videos for free AND gives them ad revenue share for hosting youtube ads.
You aren’t some hero for adblocking youtube but still watching it. google won’t notice your small dip in their revenue, but the youtuber who made it will.
Wanna support the people who entertain you (or, i guess, “waste your time”, if that’s what you consider entertainment to be — if all you want is to waste your time, don’t ads do the same thing for you?). Pay them directly for their content. Want to take a fake stand that supports nobody but yourself and your own inconveniences, install an ad blocker and boast on the internet about how you’re totally fucking over google and the people who create youtube content by doing so. But don’t treat yourself like some hero for doing so.
If content creators provide 90% or even 60% of value to YouTube, why is Google a trillion dollar company while major content creators are fighting for scraps that fall from their table? Why are content creators who aren’t in the top tier compensated so little for what they bring to the table?
YouTube is nothing without content. Unionize. Stand together and get paid what you’re worth.
where do i find the 10-40% percent of youtube-produced content on youtube you’re talking about?
Google is a trillion dollar company because they do far more than youtube, and make the majority of their money from taking a percentage of ad revenue. This does include youtube, and youtube is only profitable to google because they can sell ads on top of it, because video hosting on the internet is fucking expensive.
i pay google nothing, just like you. i do, however, support my favorite youtubers outside of google revenue streams with my own money, either through direct support or merchandise.
Both installing an adblocker and not even going to youtube will cost google money. I don’t care which you do. But if you do watch specific youtubers regularly, support them directly, even if you do use an ad blocker.
You’re not a hero for adblocking google. You’re a hero if you support content creators outside of google, whether or not you watch them on youtube using an adblocker.
I was never defending google or youtube.
I was defending the people who produce content on youtube, and who do not enjoy the benefits of google’s wealth and market position, and are just trying to create their content.
adblock youtube if you want, but unless you’re also supporting the creators of your content outside of google, i have never paid google a dime either. don’t pretend this is about a big corporation. you just think you deserve to be entertained for free, regardless of who put in the effort to create it.
If you’re REALLY anti-google/youtube, STOP USING THEM. If you watch them with adblock, google can still spin your usage statistics into something that will appeal to investors, but youtube creators will be wondering why their numbers dwindle, because they don’t have investors to (lie to / spin numbers at). You’re still helping youtube, even with an adblocker.
On the other hand, if you support content creators outside of youtube? you are supporting them directly, without youtube’s involvement and without google even getting a cut. I do this for several youtubers, and support even more through merch and etc.
But sure keep telling me i’m defending the landlords because i’m getting mad at you for mistreating the staff and pretending you’re sticking it to the landlords.
To your point about watching YouTube with adblockers still helping Google due to viewership numbers. That's exactly why after I stopped supporting blizzard (at first due to the blutzchung controversy, then everything else that happened) I immediately stopped playing hearthstone, yes, I was playing it free, I never spent any money on it, but I didn't want to even indirectly help by giving them usage statistics, or by giving paying people even a little bit of a quicker matchmaking.
The modern Internet community has an interestingly illogical take on free services. Either use them or pay for an alternative. But the average user has grown up on free services and will happily insist on having their cake and eating it too
Unlock origin is the adblocker that people are installing. There are a lot of people with shitty adblockers out there, I guess they are switching.
I searched "YouTube adblocker" on both google and DDG. The first mention of ublock origin was in the 1st page of Google (just at the bottom, under "recommended adblockers for Firefox", the 2nd option). There was no mention of it on DDG, even though I clicked "more results" once (so searched the equivalent of 2 pages). The problem with Google search is not google, it's SEO, that affects all search engines.
To be fair someone that uses DDG most likely already has ublock origin.
I just tried it and there's plenty of results to Reddit references to U block origin on Firefox.
You're clearly making an assumption here
Yeah youtubes attempt at being tiktok is just awful and they don't even have options to not have shorts show up in the feed. On top of shorts just being inferior versions of regular videos without functional controls
I started blocking those from appearing when they first showed up. There are a number of ways to do it. The Blocktube extension is one.
if you click ublock, select the settings cog, then in the tab that opens select 'my filters', you can enter the following to do the same thing:
www.youtube.com##.ytd-rich-section-renderer.style-scope
Personally I avoid installing too many extentions as they are quite literally apps that auto open whenever you just want to browse the web (regardless of if you're going to youtube, you're computer runs a youtube specific adblock)
I switched to FreeTube and now all the shorts are on a separate page I can switch over to if I feel like watching them. It's also got SponsorBlock built in. Now I can enjoy youtube with a clean, faster interface and google isn't tracking a damn thing. All because google got greedy and made their user experience shit.
Google didn't get greedy, it's doing what it's been doing for years. Before resorting to plunging us into Matrix-like pods, they're trying to squeeze some more data out of users.
I only wish PiP worked the way it does in Firefox, not in Edge/Chromium. I like to have my browser next to full height video on my ultrawide, but PiP will not go beyond 1080 pixels tall.
I found an extension that gets rid of the shorts, thank god
Also if you have enhancer it has an option to turn off the shorts bar and convert shorts to real videos.
Yeah, I hate how crappy search now is.
It'll show me a couple of videos, then shorts, then some kind of recommendation list. If I actually want to do a complete search for the thing, and only the thing, I'm looking for, I have to go to advanced options and specify I'm looking for videos. JUST videos.
I don't even care about the shorts showing up in search results. What really irks me is that you get like 3 videos related to search results, then some random unrelated shit, 3 relevant videos, more unrelated garbage, and then the rest of the actually relevant videos. I am specifically searching for something, just show me the damn thing.
Yes. The way the default search now works is that, when you search you get:
- Three or four videos that are actually from your search.
- Some recommended playlists.
- The shorts tray that vaguely has some content related to your search.
- Maybe two or three more videos from the actual search.
- "People also watch" recommendations.
- "Shorts for you" recommendations.
If you want to get just your search results, cutting away shorts, playlists, and the recommendations that take up the majority of the search page, you'll have to open up the filters and click on "videos" on the cl tent type list. Then you actually get to see the search results.
Thanks for the tip, I'll try that next time. Even though it's infuriating that it's necessary in the first place
the shorts tend to be so bad and pointless. occasionally there is someone who makes an effort, but the number of low effort and garbage ones made me stop looking at shorts ever.
First thing I did when the shorts spam apocalypse started, was create custom ublock filters to strip them out of youtube as much as I could. Too bad I didn't back them up before my system decided to go poof.
I just copied them over from here. Works for me.
Thanks for the hint! I mostly just ignored the shorts, but I just added that filter list to uBlock in firefox on android and it is much more pleasant when they're not there in the first place.
I only heard about AdNauseum because of this whole debacle. It blocks ads, hasn't temporarily broken (as far as I have seen), and I set it to "click" 80% of all ads it sees.
I have probably screwed whatever profile they built on me, cost the ad buyers money bc clicks, hurt the conversion rate for purchases to cost google money, and even possibly made money for my favorite creators and sites (depending on how they're paid).
Though someone lmk if I am misunderstanding something about it.
Holy crap, now that is causing massive damage to advertisers. I didn’t know this existed either. If everyone used it, the entire internet would collapse because most of it is for-profit now, unlike 30 years ago (when I made my first site in notepad).
The other person's been downvoted pretty heavily so I'll volunteer to accept some.
Sponsorblock is a shitty tool for extremely selfish people that only hurts small-time content creators. You can't argue about your data privacy, malware, corporate profits, or Google. Sponsorships are literally the least invasive and most direct form of financial support the average person can get for their content without you paying them directly. YouTubers do it because Google is already fucking them over. There's absolutely no higher justification for it beyond annoyance at an extremely minor inconvenience and a sense of entitlement to the work of others.
You people would go to a little league baseball game and tear down the banner for Tom's Auto Care if you could. Not every attempt at making money is evil.
You people would go to a little league baseball game and tear down the banner for Tom's Auto Care if you could.
If someone came out and shoved the banner in my face and didn’t let me watch the game until several seconds had elapsed, yes, I’d tear the banner down too. Because it’s unacceptable.
But no one does that. The banner sits there in the outfield on the wall being unobtrusive and not interrupting the game or the flow of the game. That’s acceptable.
Make the ads unobtrusive and not interrupt the flow of the video and I don’t care. The problem is YT / YTers don’t do that. That’s why Sponser Block exists.
Sponsor block is a different beast. Should we really be doing that to our content creators? No, definitely not. Is it them or the advertising company that suffers?
Edit: Actually really surprised about this. Couple weeks ago people are sticking up for YT premium prices. Now, you are against helping the creators you watch.
Agree. SponserBlock is just doing the clicking for me. I did the same thing manually for a long time as my regular youtoobers got sponsored. Good for them, but I don’t need to see it and they still got sponsored.
If you weren't planning on paying for the product, the creator won't take any hit from you using sponsorblock. In fact, the advertiser won't either. Nobody will be hurt by it, because it was a massive waste of your time to start with.
Well, the blocker doesn't stop me from seeing the ad, it stops me from wasting my time manually skipping the ad. I still don't see how that's going to change my mind about anything.
Also, if you were thinking of getting anything from a youtube ad: they are almost exclusively bad products. If you need something, just do a tiny bit of research instead of going with the first thing a content creator agreed to shill for.
Huh, Sponsorblock is basically muting TV ads like in the old days.
Why should I be forced to watch a sponsor almost always totally unrelated to the content I seek to watch, and that the YouTuber decided to upload?
Bingo. Buy a VPN for privacy just means, give us your data instead of your ISP.
Now, a VPN provider may very well be more trustworthy than your ISP! But then again, maybe not... That depends on your circumstances and risk profile.
He did eventually take one later on, which I can imagine must've been a bit of a painful decision ;-;
This is actually why i don’t like it. Most of my subs do this kinda thing rarely but occasionally. Sponsorblock creates a gap in the video that is more jarring then the 1 second self promotion, wish there was an option to only block self promotions more then 4 seconds long.
I really can't stand requests for likes, subscribes, notification bell at all. I actually hate it more than ads, and have backed out of many a video that didn't happen to have the segment flagged at the beginning.
You can still use sponsorblock and configure it to not skipping sponsor segments if you want, and still enjoying the benefits of automatically skipping useless segments such as intro, outro, subscription reminders, self promotion, recaps, etc.
You're absolutely right. Sponsorblock directly harms the average people making content, it has nothing to do with Google.
It's gross and reveals how much of the complaining about ads has absolutely nothing to do with privacy or malware or corporate profiteering or anything like that. These people are just nakedly selfish.
Wear those downvotes with pride. They mean you have a conscience and feel empathy.
Cheers. I don't think I've ever had such a response to a normal ethical take. We complain about wanting free and open source products but by the looks of it nobody is able to sit through a 20 second sponsor.
If we had everything on a free open source platform people would still skip the sponsored segment.
I feel if the sponsor blocks keep up we'll start to see the creators or sponsors combat it in ways we really don't like.
Sponsors don't pay the creator less if you skip the sponsor segment. That's not tracked, at least not in a way that google will share with the creator or anyone else. If that changes someday, sure, you have a point. For now skipping the sponsor segment is as harmless as skipping through the commercials on TV.
Whatever, either i have to manually switch forward or sponsorblock does it for me. Second option is less annoying.
I watch YT about once a week and usually an hour or less. Premium isn’t worth it for that low of use. Sponsors, I skipped, always. I’ve never once purchased from a sponsor. I also skipped subscribe crap manually (I’m not logged in, I can’t).
SponsorBlock just does it for me, kinda nice. The creator gets paid by viewership so I have helped when I watch.
Lemmy isn’t seen by 98% of the public so my mentioning it hardly spreads further awareness. What did spread it was YT themselves cracking down. It made news headlines and my own mother asked I come over and install one.
YT Streisand Effected themselves. They demanded we not use them and got more people using them because of it.
Now, my mom won’t see Google ads anywhere, not just YT. What a smart move because I know there’s probably a million new UBlock users.
The content creators get paid the exact same whether I skip the sponsor segment or not. YouTube doesn't track that, or not in a way they share with anyone else at any rate. Sponsors aren't going to pay the content creators less due to skips since they literally cannot see who skips the segment.
In other words, it doesn't hurt the content creator in the slightest.
I mean, I might have considered paying for YT premium if I thought it offered some value (other than disabling ads) but I won't sure as hell pay for anything that any company is trying to blackmail me into.
I mean you didn't buy it before so why would you now? You don't need excuses. You just don't want to pay for it. Own it.
One could argue that we're paying for it without our consent, given the fact that Google doesn't pay anything in taxes. That's a cool four billion a year (at least) that they get from the American taxpayer for free.
One could argue that we're paying for it without our consent
One could argue that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. That doesn't make it remotely true.
Google doesn't pay anything in taxes
Uh. Google pays a shitload in taxes. There hasn't been a single year that they HAVEN'T paid taxes. They paid 11 billion in income taxes alone in 2022.
I use it because YouTube music is included and it's great while driving, it allows background play even with the screen off (I'm talking about mobile).
There's something more, but nothing that a pro user cannot already do with third tools.
I find it funny how sometimes apps "create value" by taking something away which is included by default in similar products and goes without saying.
In this context: YouTube is the only app I know which is denying to work when put into background or with the screen off.
Or take some car manufacturers who start asking for a fee just to use basic functionality.
But that's the wrong way around. They don't want you to pay, they make their money through advertising. They make far more money from advertiser's paying to put up ads than they ever make from people paying for premium.
Same as with Facebook now bringing in an ad-free version (in the EU anyway) - they charge higher than is reasonable so that people will opt for the ad-supported free version instead.
It's not that you are blackmailed into paying premium, it's that you're encouraged not to as a way of explicitly consenting to ads.
Basically, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
lmao you're so wrong on ads being more profitable than premium, especially on a per-user basis
According to this you can expect to make around $18/1000 views. That's with 55% going to the creator and 45% to Google. Which means that Google makes around $14.5 per 1000 views.
Coincidentally, that's also rougly the price of YouTube Premium. Are you telling me that you watch a thousand videos per month?
For desktop install and use "FreeTube".
Alternatively for your android phone you can use "GrayJay"
Never. Pay. For. YouTube. Premium
You don't need root because this is its own app unlike the apps like revance which patch your existing YouTube app.
Abandoning YouTube is seriously more difficult than abandoning other "non-fediverse" general social media platforms, since it's got so much useful content that gets straight up ruined by the company that owns the website.
I doubt PeerTube is anything better than Vimeo, at least for now, things can improve after all.
I love that all the centralized social media networks are scrambling to become shitty for profits right around the time users are realizing that they don’t need centralized servers to host their user-generated content. Users can take their content wherever they want and let these platforms die.
Maybe we don't need 4K 60FPS video to show Mr. Beast giving away more crap. Just because we can up the quality, doesn't mean we should. Or maybe client-side real-time AI upscaling will make this a non-issue.
Call me old fashioned but I'd rather see high native quality available for when it is relevant. If I'm watching gameplay footage (as one example) I would look at the render quality.
With more and more video games already trying to use frame generation and upscaling within the engine, at what point is too much data loss? Depending on upscaling again during playback means that you video experience might depend on which vendor you have - for example, an Nvidia computer may upscale differently from an Intel laptop with no DGPU vs an Android running on 15% battery.
That would become even more prominent if you're evaluating how different upscaling technologies look in a given video game, perhaps with an intent to buy different hardware. I check in on how different hardware encoders keep up with each other with a similar research method. That's a problem that native high resolution video doesn't have.
I recognize this is one example and that there is content where quality isn't paramount and frame gen and upscaling are relevant - but I'm not ready to throw out an entire sector of media for this kind of gain on some media. Not to mention that not everyone is going to have access to the kind of hardware required to cleanly upscale, and adding upscaling to everything (for everyone who's not using their PS5/Xbox/PC as a set top media player) is just going to drive up the cost of already very expensive consumer electronics and add yet another point of failure to a TV that didn't need to be smart to begin with.
The quality is something that depends on the content. If the video is just someone talking, 4K is overkill. And not every gameplay has to be recorded forever. Only the good ones. And even the videos can be rescaled after some time if nobody sees them.
Is there some reason you can't start up a decentralized content hosting platform. Just let anyone with a spare hd and a spare pc at home join up?
Like I guess I don't really want anything illegal on my PC.... Maybe this plan is awful.
This exists. For example, for general decentralized storage, there's storj.io, and there's PeerTube. But I guess there's a reason it's not more widespread. I'd happily be proven wrong, though.
This 100%. Look at forums. Back in the early days, there were lots of little independent forums. Sites like Reddit took over because you could easily keep your identity across multiple forums and see the content from all your communities on one page. We gained convenience, but didn't think too hard about what we were losing or who we were losing it to. Then along came enshittification and we are collectively realizing what we lost. Federation is of course the solution. As I see it, the only missing piece is monetization. Platforms like YouTube make it easy to monetize page views, Twitter / X is doing the same. That's much harder in the fediverse.
Patreon for monification?
Ads suck. And honestly, if we had less content creators, they'd be fine. There are a lot of absolutely degenerates out there. Let's cull the herd a bit and let us speak individually with our wallets.
That's a fair point. Patreon, or whatever comes next, needs to drastically reduce friction. That by the way is why Amazon is so successful, reducing purchase friction. Right now if you have something that a million people will take for free, and you start to charge just one penny for it, your audience of a million will drop to like 12. Not because people don't want to spend a penny, but because they don't want to fill out a form and put in their name address credit card number expiration date security code phone number email address etc. If there was a button they could click that was like 'instant donate 5 cents' most people would click that a lot.
The closest thing I've heard to that was a crypto called basic attention token, which aimed to do just that. They are making a big mistake though in that they are only integrating with Brave browser rather than making a universal plug-in. So the idea of a universal solution is still a ways off I guess. But I think to make it zero friction it will have to be crypto based in some way.
you could easily keep your identity across multiple forums and see the content from all your communities on one page
RSS feeds have provided this experience for years. The problem is that a lot of sites stopped serving RSS feeds for their content. But sites like rss.app and openrss can be used to get RSS feeds for sites that don't have them.
RSS is great for content consumption. It's a shame that many sites stopped serving it- same thing with podcasts, now everyone wants you to listen on this or that platform instead of just publishing a normal RSS feed full of MP3 files.
That said though, RSS doesn't help for participation, it's a one-way tech.
I guess if you have forums that put out RSS feeds you could aggregate them together for post titles, but that's still clumsy. Lemmy does it much more elegantly.
My understanding of RSS is that it's basically a list of metadata and links for content... Its always seemed to me to be a great way to aggregate the content you want to see. He did specifically mention keeping an Identity across multiple forums and I'm not aware of any RSS implementation that provides that functionality though... are you? That's a huge feature to miss if we're talking about social link aggregators like Reddit and Lemmy.
One of the main advantages of RSS is that it doesn't track you or require an account for it to work. As you said it's only a XML or JSON file wth the latest items posted on the website.
Yeah, sorry I was specifically replying to part about seeing the content from communities (or everything on the internet, really) in one view. Keeping your identity across multiple forums is platform-specific and would be solved by Lemmy directly. RSS feeds would just give you the updates and the links directly to the content. But once you click through to go to each website, you'd just be using your already-logged-in state on the platform.
It's like we're reverting to the days you would go to homestarrunner.com, illwillpress, etc to see content from people you actually wanted to see content from. Honestly looking forward to it
I said you did a great jeeeeaaaeeeeoooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrb!
Youtube is a perfect example of why ad blockers exist. They use ridiculous ad volumes and spy on their users for data to sell.
And they increased the fucking price for YouTube premium.
Meanwhile, Youtube engineers and uBlock Origin volunteers are in a war of attrition, updating both the website (youtube, to block ublock) and uBlock Origin (the ad blocker, to unblock the ublock blocker) multiple times a day every day
Oh, of course not. But uBlock Origin and pihole aren't going anywhere. Hell, they'd probably have to get legislation to slow it down, but good luck fighting that battle. Hollywood's war against piracy is a good comparison.
something something offer a better service than the pirates
Exactly. We've come a long way from $6/m netflix. I would rather give up youtube than pay them $10/m. I GLADLY paid $1/m to a twitch adblocker the other day. Ill pay, but not fucking $10/m when I can avoid it with some complications for free.
Not even, they've already tried to make the case of Anti-adblock bypass violating DMCA and it hasn't gone anywhere. Unlike piracy where it can and is claimed as a violation of copyright law.
I think its c/Pihole
but I haven't figured it our yet
Reminds me of the IM wars back in the latter 90s / early 00s. At one point, briefly, AIM and Trillian were pushing updates to negate each other every few hours.
Switched finally to ff. So I guess thank you google.
Spread the word to install firefox based browser, use different frontends to block youtube ads in browser, Invidious and use piped youtube apps on android to block youtbe ads: Newpipe
I had uBlock Origin installed since forever, are people just finding out about it?
NewPipe in my mobile and FreeTube in my desktop. Fuck you Google
It will always be a technology race. And it's one that so far the content platforms have lost.
Especially given they always abuse the upper hand when they have it, motivating the coding community to solve that problem right quick.
it's a race that they will win easily with something like this https://github.com/...
go ahead and downvote me it will help you make your point
I’ll do my part in helping you make your point, sir!
I agree with you that such efforts are always a threat, and I'm reminded both of the V-Chip and the current efforts in the UK to keep blokes from watching their porn (anonymously, that is, without ending up on a registry of porn watchers), what may end up adding the right to porn access as a specific chartered right in our universal charters (and some national / state charters). Here in California, the right to produce porn is explicitly established in state law, which is embarrassing to some, a point of pride to others.
The MPAA and RIAA also tried to get all the ISPs to agree to shut down (or throttle) service after twelve strikes by an anti-piracy board, who would track the IP addies of torrents. This fueled the development of magnet links (now the standard). And meant that Xfinity and AT&T had to be extra shitty to customers due to causes they don't care about, while folks are already desperate to disconnect from them in favor of an alternative. So they haven't really be enforcing it.
And yes, Google is retreating on the WEI thing for now (if only they could get the federal government to pass a law) but the blowback on an eventual universal DRM is going to be severe, including revealing to the world that TPMs don't do what they are supposed to do as explained to the end-user, making them hostile architecture. It'll also potentially send increased traffic (and increased business) into the EU, or out of the US into less traceable regions, and get the determined end-user interested in the dark net, because watching a cat video without ads now requires the same savvy as getting access to CSAM, active revolutionary news and restricted chemistry configurations.
What will be more interesting to me are the consequences I haven't imagined. To quote a favorite princess, The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
Anyway, the go ahead and downvote me line is creepy, and brushes against poisoning the well I don't downvote dissenting opinions, (and can't, anyway from my Lemmy instance).
Been using these apps for years, when YT does their crap the community gets it fixed and rolled out within a few days (worst has been two weeks).
Lots of thankless devs and contributors dedicated to preventing YouTube from screwing us over!
That's what Youtube is trying. Either pay or at least stop using it, so you don't cost them money.
Try LibreTube on mobile.
It crashes every time I try to open a video
Check which version you're on. If it's not 0.19.0 you need to update. F-Droid now has the newest version.
Ok fixed thanks
This is the way.
The default browser at my work is Firefox lol, only our testing team and a few others use Chrome. It's a pretty welcome change 👍
I find it a little funny when we get Chrome-specific bug reports though
Aside from Firefox, are there any decent non-Chromium-based browsers left?
Nope
Thanks.
For anyone else interested, as of November 2023:
Web browsers using Gecko (Firefox's engine): GNU IceCat, Waterfox, K-Meleon, Lunascape, Portable Firefox, Conkeror, Classilla, TenFourFox.
Web browsers using the Goanna engine (which is a fork of Gecko): Pale Moon, Basilisk.
Flow is a web browser with its own proprietary browser engine.
The other active engines listed are: WebKit (Apple's engine), and Blink (Google's engine, which they forked off of WebKit, and which is used for Chrome, Chromium, and countless other browsers).
Why the fuck would anyone uninstall their ad blocker just because one site demands it? Whitelists exist for a reason.
I'll stop using Internet before I even consider whitelisting YouTube.
Right? I've used ad blockers as soon as they popped on the Internet scene. I hate advertisements, commercials and any kind of marketing. I don't watch TV, and when I do or it's on nearby, I get up and walk away during the commercials. When sponsored stuff interrupts a video I'm watching, I skip forward until the video returns. If I have to use a browser with no ad block, I straight up abandon most sites. It's untenable!
In general, I treat life and products/services I want like a business doing a Request For Purchase (RFP). If I want something, I'll look up companies that provide that product or service and rely heavily on the recommendations of friends, family, and community when making a purchase decision. Those who aggressively solicit me will almost never get my money or be considered.
Fuck capitalism.
That article was full of such blatantly misleading crap. Headline talks about record number of adblocker uninstalls, but the actual data says it was an uptick in both installs and uninstalls. In other words it was people cycling through different adblockers trying to find one that still worked.
And that didn't mention ublock origion, the blocker that still works...
IDK why anyone uses anything else. It has street cred, it improves response times, it is ideologically just about blocking ads
I use tracker blockers and containers too, but every machine that has been in my hands for more than 10 minutes has it installed
Because they're still on Chrome based browsers. It's not really about the ad blocker, it's about the browser. You're not going to beat Google at their own game using the tools that they gave you.
Stupid Wired article was stupid.
It's like war propaganda, both sides are eager to claim they're winning lol
They should fucking do an experiment - 2€/$ a month for an ad-free subscription and 3€/$ a month for higher video quality+no ads subscription. I would fucking pour my money into it.
Oh wait, that would not solve lack of sponsorblock. I guess I am not interested then...
They literally had that experiment with Premium Light. €6 for ad free watching, it was all I needed. But they literally sent out a mail they were stopping this tier right before they started implementing more anti-ad blocking measures.
Oddly enough, the "lite" subscription was introduced in some other countries during the time they shut it off in the launch countries.
I wonder if they're testing willingness to spend using the cheaper sub, then pulling it if it turns out people are likely to buy the pricier plan once the lower tier isn't available anymore?
I had the light subscription for over a year, not planning on paying for useless stuff like the music stuff though. Had it through a family plan years before and it was laughably bad compared to Spotify.
Nebula can only afford to do that because basically nobody who subs to nebula actually watches the videos on it. They did a video about their revenue model and people treat it as a way to support the creators, not to actually watch content
Could Nebula work as a Patreon-competitor. Patreon as a company is totally fucked iirc - the investors are treating the company like a piggy bank, which is a shame because it is easily a profitable and viable company.
Nebula is pretty awesome and the type of content is great. I miss some light entertainment content though, so the network effect is at work. Still, nebula is the only streaming platform I'd consider subscribing as their policy is great and they do provide good value.
I'm not really certain what value nebula provides other than some creators uploading occasional content exclusively on nebula. Without nebula they'd just... Upload it to YouTube, which is free, so I'm not sure what the difference is
Meh I had nebula a couple years ago and it had some missing features and fairly poor depth of content. The same few bits constantly being pushed. I'm hopeful it improves but I wasn't using it.
And who will pay for those?
People valuing the content and the platform.
For now our best chance for free platform is Odysee/Lbry - at least crypto bros can keep tue platform running for the sake of it. Or PeerTube, but less likepy since it's more enthusiasm-driven, and enthusiasm only gets you so far.
Also, Nebula, CuriosityStream and other similar subscription services are good - and people pay for them.
I pay for Youtube, but I'm clearly in the minority. Look at all the pitchforks in this thread not willing to pay one cent or watch one ad but demanding the content...
They'd absolutely 100% be losing money with a $2 ad free tier. Ads make significantly more than that per user per month. Same with your """solution""" for higher res video. Bandwidth is goddamn expensive.
I agree, but they'd get a large number of users to subscribe.
And then maybe they wouldn't complain when they raised the price to $3. And a few months later maybe $3.50. Then $5.
A few years ago, people wouldn't have paid over $15 for a standard Netflix tier without 4K. But the way to boil a frog is to make them nice and comfy in lukewarm water, then keep increasing the temperature slowly... So even if they lose money, maybe a low price for the ad-free YouTube could make sense, from a business perspective.
Every time Netflix rises prices it makes it to the news (let alone all the drama on twitter/reddit/etc), I don't know what frog boiling you're talking about.
Yet they keep posting more and more profits. Subscriber count has only increased despite the content being lower quality and prices being higher. The fact that we don't like them increasing the prices doesn't mean it isn't working for them.
I'm not arguing it will work forever, but for now, it's been a viable strategy.
I completely agree the price is far too high.
I actually do subscribe but only because I get a deal through my mobile network that, long story short, cuts the price by two thirds.
I can’t understand their pricing policy at all. And they’re doing a terrible job at explaining their cost basis if it’s actually what it costs to serve video to us (highly doubt it).
Linus Tech Tips did a nice video on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDsJJRNXjYI
But it should not be done by LTT, but by Google.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=MDsJJRNXjYI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Not everybody is.
That's the thing, even if 95% of users currently using ad blockers block ads anyway or leave the service, YouTube still wins big.
They aren't worried at all about alienating users from which they can't extract ad revenue. Those on the margin that turn off ad blockers or subscribe to a paid plan are the target, not everyone else.
I don't know what the whole fuzz was / is about, it's years now that I unwillingly watched ads, anywhere. So easy, piehole, newpipe, avoid any Microsoft shit, you just have to be ready to learn a bit, it's not rocket science. Ok, rocket science helped, but that's not the point...
I dont even mind ads when its like one minute for 20 minutes of footage. Pluto TV is free to use and has commercial breaks but they never really bother me because they aren't that annoying and i get a lot of MST3K before I watch them. Youtube ad are cancer in comparison.
What happened to the idea of small, non-intrusive banner ads? Of course it's not realistic to expect those on YouTube and they bring much less revenue compared to in-your-face video interstitials per impression, but I'm much more likely to whitelist those.
What happened to the idea of small, non-intrusive banner ads
You answered your own question:
they bring much less revenue compared to in-your-face video interstitials per impression
And shortsighted profit driven thinking - can make a load more money now even if some users are pissed off, don't worry about long term user retention. Oh what!?! The usersbase is pissed and leaving/blocking things, better double down to keep them profits high in the mean time...
Can't believe I'm actually missing the days of the "you're the 1000th visitor" banner ads.
I went the route of accepting their 2-month trial of Premium, and immediately disabled it from continuing after the 2 months. Hopefully that's enough time to come up with an acceptable solution that works the way I want it to. Honestly, if Premium was like $5/month, they'd get my money. But for almost triple that? Fuck no, never happening.
Triple for now. After a while they will quadruple it. People will be a paying 100$+ on subscription fees
There was a post yesterday saying that the price of YT Premium Family in Australia is almost literally doubling next month (+88% IIRC). People from a few other regions reported similar. Completely insane.
So the article.claims that Youtube's plan backfired because uninstall rates on some AD blockers increased and a percentage of those users cited "YouTube" as the reason.
I don't know if it's just me but that's a massive stretch. I would like to hear numbers from YouTube themselves before jumping to any conclusions. These companies operate on scale and usually have enough data to back these decisions. Can it go wrong, sure. Has it already backfired. Not sure.
Firefox with ublock / Libretube / Libretube with Sponsorblock / Newpipe / Piped website if not on mobile.
EDIT: I currently use Firefox with uBlock on desktop and Libretube with Sponsorblock (integrated) on android.
I'm guessing this isn't what YouTube had in mind when they started this campaign.
To quote The Joker, "It'll be funny if it weren't so pathetic...oh, what the heck, I'll laugh anyways!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
There is a ton of quality content, I watch 3 hours a day and can't make a dent on my "watch later" queue.
News, popular science, hobbies, humor, tech...
How do you find it, all I seem to get is trash and if I have to hear the phrase "like and subscribe" one more time I'll scream?
There's tons of old movies and TV shows on YouTube. That alone is hours of content worth watching if you can block the ads.
I really like freetube on desktop, since I have liked the move towards less dependency on accounts. And freetube let's me have a custom feed without needing an account.
And I love the built in sponsorblock and channel blocking feature too.
I'll be honest I didn't even know you could log in to YouTube with it. I assumed most people would be using it to actively not participate. By using it you're already taking ad revenue away and skipping sponsored segments.
I was looking at freetube as a potential solution, as at a quick glance, it seems to do most of the things I want. But honestly, I doubt it will be long before they start implementing systems to block such apps from being able to access YouTube content.
On windows, Firefox + uBlock Origin. On Mac and iOS, Safari + Adguard.
What prevents them from going in video adds? Technically difficult? Or what?
Somehow, I'm not even able to see ads on my system. I have firefox with ublock, sync on my three systems macOS, linux and windows. Not a single ad in years. I've tried to disable ublock, just to see the mess, and it still wont play ads. Lol. Anyway, I will stop watching youtube before watching ads. I always watch the sponsor thing tho.
How did YouTube become the monopoly it is? Seems they were always riding Vimeo’s coattails and have been rewarded handsomely for it.
Yeah you heard them - Firefox.
Send email to your fav. Youtubers to start a channel on Odyssey. Hope we get a comparable alternative. Odyssey is pretty good. Load time is less and video quality is great. Just need content creators. Does anyone know if Odyssey pays its content creators?
Like a week ago, the company behind Odyssey lost a lawsuit and will be shutting down. As of now, no one knows what happens to Odyssey in the future. Maybe some other company buys it and continues to run it. Maybe it changes into something totally different. Maybe it just shuts down.
Because those were set up under the idea of 'free peach', not under the idea of 'this neoliberal demonic brood is sucking us dry'.. The others just think that YouTube is leaving money laying around by kicking nazis off. I suggest leaving them alone in their safe space.
Which is really unfortunate because there are some actually useful, neat projects
Depending on how you look at it. It's not perfect, but it is something, and it allows creators profits to scale up with the platform. I'd like if they'd get a choice between that and traditional payouts, though, and recognize Odysee/Lbry is not the final holy grail for hosting video content.
Lmao
Cry more, google
Streisand effect
Umm no, NewPipe is not a website. That would be invidious/piped.
Vivaldi's stock built in ad blocking has still been working for me, have yet to see an ad.
Honestly, Google did this to themselves with not properly vetting the advertisers that they sell space to, and with oversaturation of ads.
If they'd have stopped granting ad space to scammers and malware spreaders, and if they'd have stopped adding advertisements at the line most people find tolerable (which seems to be a single ad between videos... not multiple at a time, and certainly no mid-rolls), they wouldn't have triggered quite the level of ad blocking that they did.
I see this "problem" that they have as being entirely of their own making.
Technology circumvention and copyright infringement are just about the only power consumers have against the near monopolies and cartel like behavior from the tech/media industry since our government regulators have been neutered.
I am grandfathered into a family Premium plan from the old Youtube Red days. The price is close to doubling come April. In the absence of competition or government intervention to punish anti-compeitive, anti-consumer behaviour I will be relying on ad-blocking and other circumvention measures next year. I am willing to pay a fair price but costs of living have gone up a lot while incomes for regular people are stagnant. The executives running these companies are completely disconnected from reality.
but i saw another article saying that adblocker usage dropped by like ... meh i dunno 80% or some awful figure that I didn't want to believe.
i'd rather live in the version of the world where this one is true, that nobody is installing adblockers, but i know better (sometimes) than to simply succumb to confirmation bias...
if youtube were smart though, it'd make ads less shitty, intrusive, and obnoxious.
ahhhhh there it is.
so the other article was akin to youtube celebrating that the car that ran them over stopped, without acknowledging that it only did so to shift into reverse and back over them again. heh.
I commented elsewhere, but the headline was referencing an 80% rise in uninstalls during the month, but the article itself revealed that there was a matching rise in installs during that same month. In other words it was people uninstalling their old adblockers and installing a new one, cycling through them to find one that worked.
Next logical step is to modify the uploaded video itself to contain ads around the video frame or on automatically detected clear surfaces in the video.
so the best option not to use chrome based web browsers that have aid youtube to avoid it, there are great experience in adblock using mozilla browser(or their forks like librewolf or icecat) and ublock origin, then we have full fdroid of clients for example newpipe with is based on invidous api that you can even host for yourself and friends, this free of any ads crap, when youtube decide to block their api then this will die yes, welcome to peertube😜
Controversial take but:
- YouTube are fully within their rights to crack down on adblockers, as they have done in the past. Content delivery is not free, and they are not a charity.
- YouTube provides two ways to "pay" for your content: with ads, or by paying for premium.
- Tech companies have an unhealthy habit of making things free or cheap to gain a userbase, then increasing the price. The biggest problem with this imo is that it sets expectations with users that these things should be free
- I am not going to get into an argument about what price is "fair" or whether Google can "afford it". All I know is that for now, they continue to run YouTube, but nothing stops them from shutting it all down tomorrow if they decide it's not profitable enough.
As for myself personally, I watched YouTube with ads for the last 2 or 3 years, and more recently I decided to start paying for YouTube Premium.
YouTube Premium made sense for me because:
- I was spending more than 3 hours a day on YouTube (in the background or as the thing I'm actively watching.
- I could afford it now that my financial situation had improved
- Creators get significantly more money from YouTube Premium watchers (or so I've heard)
Before all of that, I used to use YouTube Vanced (RIP) and NewPipe, both great though not entirely legit ways of bypassing ads and downloading videos. I still use the latter to archive the really good content I come across.
If you're ok to pay for YouTube, but it's too expensive for the value you get out of it, there are alternative approaches. You can spoof your location and buy YouTube Premium in another country, like Turkey or India, and get it for as low as $2 a month. Google doesn't crack down on this much at the time of writing.
Oh I definitely don’t have a better plan than ublock origin folks, they are still the best. But there’s also a way to programmatically exploit the skipable ads to instantly skip without any countdown shenanigans. It’s not blocking the ads but I never see them. And it was a good stopgap for when the shit first hit the fan.
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
go to feed...
These tech companies have underestimated their utility. They are mostly providing mindless time wasters. If you try to charge money or create inconvenience, people will look for something else to do.
Their attention is your lifeblood, and you’re actively giving them reasons to look elsewhere. The VC grow-at-all-costs business model is fundamentally flawed. It doesn’t scale when profitability becomes a priority.
save