It's so encouraging to hear so many pro Firefox opinions lately. Then I remember I'm logged into the pirate instance of a federated platform and anti-corporate sentiment is probably as high as it gets.
Sadly most younger people haven't even heard of Firefox.
Most young people are basically tech illiterate. Yeah they are fantastic with new apps and phones. But have zero idea how any of it works under the hood.
Ask them to transfer a file from a computer to a USB drive, most will not know how. They have no idea how a file system is structured or even that an app has to specifically made for different platforms.. e.g. Facebook app on Apple is completely different from Facebook on Android and the two will contain different bugs and different settings.
We are almost back to default browser = internet
You're absolutely right.
Yeah they are fantastic with new apps and phones.
I think that's mostly because most commercial apps have fantastic ui and ux.
It's my preferred mobile browser because you can install ublock origin and other privacy extensions which is pretty unique
Firefox on android is really slow. I tried using it, but now I use Vivaldi
Pros : really fast Cons : chromium based
Right? After years of feeling like the only pro-firefox person left on the planet, the pro Firefox sentiment lately is a breath of fresh air, to say the least.
Well, we are in the worst cyberpunk timeline so...
It's my preferred mobile browser because you can install ublock origin and other privacy extensions which is pretty unique
Sadly, at the end of the day I prefer edge because it has cloud voices is slightly faster
No way I'll use YouTube with ads. The amount of your lifetime they waste is what I'd consider disrespectful to their users. Even if the ads were bearable, I wouldn't turn off my ad blocker on any Google site for tracking alone.
I also don't see myself subscribing to YouTube Premium, firstly because it's too expensive (stop including your music streaming service and make it cheaper maybe?), but also because YouTube is just a platform with a lot of not curated content that YouTube had no part in creating.
Let's see how the cat and mouse games between YouTube and ad blockers and alternative frontends go. If it's too much of a hassle, I'll just stop using YouTube. I don't miss Twitter, I don't miss Reddit, and I won't miss YouTube.
Eh, I wound up with a YouTube premium subscription years ago when I subscribed to Google play music, way back when it was YouTube Red. I cannot imagine going without at this point. It became YouTube music at some point, and... Yeah.
Not the main point, but this is the first time I've seen "allowlisted". Lol
...are they trying to avoid saying whitelisted because of the word "white"?
Yeah, at my company we switched to allow/block listed last year. Whitelisted and blacklisted are verboten
Not really, at least in Spanish we’ve always said “listas blancas/listas negras”.
I don't know what you are talking about.
Even if our dialects (Mexican) didn't have vestigial racism and fake dichotomies, permitir y bloquear is as straight forward as you can get.
IT switched from white/black literally years ago, if your department didn't, you are quite stuck in time.
In Spanish you have https://eslemmy.es/
Sure... But unless you know what either of those terms means, it's just gibberish like ping.
Glad fizzbuzz doesn't fit into the gibberish category
A lot of companies seem to be doing this, personally I think trying to make a connection between race and tech is a bit far fetched. Nobody thinks of race when talking about whitelists and blacklists...
In public repos where these changes are merged in to FOSS projects, they get little resistance too - although I could see concern of a potential backlash if anyone questioned the alleged benefit of such a change.
Imagine if this approach was taken with the (now outdated) IDE interface? Instead of "Primary Master, Primary Slave, Secondary Master, Secondary Slave", there'd maybe be "Primary Primary, Primary Secondary, Secondary Primary, Secondary Secondary" 😵
kill all children
Manager-worker seems classist and problematic /s
My company has recently started disallowing these words in code. The funny part though is the first few lines of the Jenkins job responsible for checking this stuff proudly states "Waiting for slave node to start checks."
I know it's a minor fix in the jenkinsfile but I chuckle every time I see it.
I do think dropping master is absurd, since it in no way implies slavery or any such thing. master mostly has uses that are entirely inoffensive, unless post-graduate degrees are racist, for example.
But I do think there is some merit in moving off the idea of white is good and black is bad. There are some good arguments that we shouldn't bestow magic powers upon words, but there is also a lot of merit in the idea that these words affect our perception in negative ways and there is really nothing lost by shifting to equally good alternatives.
It does to people who are absolutely obsessed with race and see it everywhere they look.
Yes, I entirely agree. A masterpiece, or mastering an art, or more relevant to software branches: master tapes. None of these imply any sort of subjugation etc..
But... that's just about the word "master". I do think there are other terms that it's a good idea to migrate away from.
In the wider context of computing and technology, "master" has historically often been paired with "slave" as well, such as old IDE hard drives that had to be switched from master to slave depending on which cable they were plugged into on which port of the motherboard. I realise that's a bit of an odd example, but there are numerous ones.
Anyway, while I don't think many people have ever used a branch name of slave, it's entirely feasible to argue that any branch that isn't master is in some way subservient to it as opposed to the master branch being the most experienced. The point isn't to debate that the way you view it is incorrect, your view is entirely reasonable and rational but in order to be inclusive we should take all other views into account and in a very simple way, rather than debate the meaning of the word master in this specific context and telling people that they're "wrong" for feeling a certain way about it, it's easy to change the word and thanks to the excellent design of git, there isn't really any downsides to it.
The “slave” part was always weird to me, so I’m fine moving to “main” over “master.”
If "master" unintentionally made some people uncomfortable then there's no harm in changing the default, since you can modify it if you choose.
Yeah it's so funny to feel the need to have a "hot take" on branch naming. It's like if Joe from my team asked me to file some papers under the green folder rather than the red. I'd be like say no more Joe, green folder it is. I don't care but if somebody cares then they have their say. How do internet people even function in group with other people, with the constant contrarian attitude they carry around?
Because the terminology is Master and Slave. That's been device terminology for half a century, and has been phased out over the last decade. It's silly to complain that they would change it.
I now say Primary and Secondary for device terminology, and Main, Stage, and Dev for branch terminology. It doesn't impact my daily life enough to be mad they don't keep Master/Slave terminology.
Because the terminology is Master and Slave. That's been a device terminology for half a century. It's silly to complain that they would change it.
I now say Primary and Secondary for device terminology, and Main, Stage, and Dev for branch terminology. It doesn't impact my daily life enough to be mad they don't keep Master/Slave terminology.
Yes, it started from this terminology change at Twitter in 2020. They're the reason that version control systems call the primary branch 'main' instead of 'master' by default, because 'master' comes from the master/slave terminology that is used in electronics hardware design.
There's a comment here saying that master/slave in hardware design is being replaced by primary/secondary because of the software trend, which I think is stupid. Master/slave works much better in that context because the master device controls the slave device. Primary/secondary implies that the slave device is a fallback of the master device.
Likely. Color connotations ("white" commonly used for positive attributes, "black" for negative, etc.) are a legit thing. Good on them for making the effort.
I don't think so. Speaking from help desk, whitelist/blacklist is apparently a confusing concept for anyone that's never heard of them before. I end up calling them allow list and block list just so to avoid ascertaining, yes, blacklist means blocked, it's already on there, you can stop trying to re-add it.
Report issue. You're not running an adblocker! wink What's an adblocker??
Google already has trouble with support, if they have a million lightly befuddled users who are getting blocked and "don't know why", that will be a problem for Google.
They'll care if enough people do it. Being flooded with reports is just as time consuming
You're assuming they're actually going to respond to the issues reported. Maybe at first they will, but I'd wager that it won't be long before all reporting an issue does is send an automated "We're looking into it" email before promptly deleting the ticket.
Might report this as an issue even while I’m not seeing it, just for some extra confusion.
I haven't had this happen using ublock origin, but if they do figure out how to block ublock origin, adnausiem (ublock origin fork) might work. It's a fork of ublock origin that tricks the ad providers into thinking you clicked on every ad, which not only bypasses a lot of adblock detectors, it Actively costs them money by polluting their ad data with garbage.
If they really want to prevent us from watching videos without ads, they can. They know of the ad is watched or not, we can have some kind of auto-mute-during-ad but that's it.
Question is if they will kill network effect with it.
I have already drastically reducedy yt watching because of too many sponsors... watching two minutes of sponsored material, plus two ads just to see that I don't even wanna watch the stupid video is too much.
Not to mention those laud ads in the middle of relaxing and quiet video... few months ago one ad was starting with screaming, that's when I said no way.
it Actively costs them money by polluting their ad data with garbage.
Lmaoo, i'm going to install that
https://github.com/JunkFood02/Seal
This is the one I've been using
there's also Newpipe x Sponsorblock on android.
Yeha, if they are pushing this, the least they can do is lower the amount of ads.
2 ads before a video starts is just too much. Also the constant ads during the videos. Screw that.
No more YouTube for me I guess.
I'd say to you all: get used to bombshells dropping! At some point the investor pyramid scheme will go crashing down. It might be now. All those companies were on borrowed time. Until investors realised that "data" isn't valuable on its own - it's what you make of it. There needs to be a product that generates revenue. Spoiler alert, it is hard to come up with a business plan that takes plain usage data and makes the technical challenges worthwhile to squeeze money from it. I can feel it myself as data scientist. The honeymoon's over, investors want to see ROI.
I mean this cycle will probably recover in a few years when the markets recover but still - some lessons stick
Honestly I think I'll go full hoarder with YouTube archivist and find a way to stream/synchronize on my devices. I mostly use YouTube to go to sleep so there is no way I go back to videos being interrupted by loud ass ads.
And then there will be another fork that does something about their something. Just like what happened to Vanced, for example.
There would always be some ways to save the video as long as it's played on your machine
they wouldn't be able to do anything. youtube-dl doesn't use an API or anything like that, it just streams the video like a browser would and rips the stream. if they somehow actually managed to selectively block youtube-dl, all youtube-dl would have to do is send a different user agent. the only defense against stream ripping in general is to not stream anything at all, which Youtube obviously cannot do
No, when they decide to end yt-dl (and similar tools) they will just enable DRM on all videos, rather than just the pay-per-view videos. The infrastructure already exists for Netflix-like DRM on YouTube. If they are serious about cracking down on ad blocking then it is a matter of time before they throw that switch.
And yet somehow you're still able to rip video from places like Netflix.
There's always a way around it. It's simply a cat and mouse game.
i agree that stopping stream ripping is indeed impossible ,what i am afraid (and think) that they gonna put small hurdles in the way until they become a big shore to overcome and this is a worst case scenario but may be they gonna implement DRM like netflix does in the future
A long as there is a way to view a video, there will be a way to save it.
This is what I'm doing since the elsagate scandal, and a recent one where there was an ad of an obese dude jacking off (I'm in the middle east, this happened about 6 months ago).
I just automate the downloads of new youtube videos and let use jellyfin to watch it.
I don’t use youtube much, but I had to selfhost because the youtube kids app is fucking nasty. I have my pihole block youtube domains for my kid's device (firewall does captive dns/redirection of all dns requests to pihole).
My child likes dr binocs and brave wilderness.
The more ad-riddled they make the platform to try and monetise users, the more they make adblocks necessary to even be usable.
I didn't use to both with adblockers. I didn't like ads, but they didn't affect me enough for me to go through any effort blocking them.
Now I use blockers everywhere, on every platform. Even for creators I like, because I know how little they actually make for ads - so how bout instead of watching 12 hours of ads so they can get 2c, I just send them a dollar or buy their merch every once in a while to not watch ads at all? Etc.
Ads could have had a place. There are ads that serve a purpose, that have minimal disruption but still give businesses a way to develop awareness for those who might want to use them.
Movie trailers (including when they stopped trailing movies and started leading them) are examples of 'acceptable ads' to me. When I purchase something from a store and they include a printed card from their sponsor. When sports teams have logos for being sponsored. A work van with the business logo parked while out on call. Etc.
But the internet's online ads? Email spam? Telemarketing? These are forms of advertising that are actively hostile, and they've become the default. So now a user that wants to be on the internet at all is best served by block all ads, including the ones that would've otherwise been reasonable.
Google will never make me feel guilty for blocking ads when they're already making their search engine unusable, too.
And while I'm at it, here's the filters to add to your uBlock Origin's MY FILTERS settings to block YT's blocker:
youtube.com##+js(set, yt.config_.openPopupConfig.supportedPopups.adBlockMessageViewModel, false)
youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.adBlocksFound, 0)
youtube.com##+js(set, ytplayer.config.args.raw_player_response.adPlacements, [])
youtube.com##+js(set, Object.prototype.hasAllowedInstreamAd, true)
Wait, surely that doesn't work? It might block the "disable your adblocker popup but there's no way this is all it takes for yt to continue serving videos?
It's feasible that there are other variables that have been missed, but essentially this works. The server asks us a question, and we answer it. We just skip the bit where we provide evidence.
It's like looking up the answers in the back of the textbook on a test. The only thing the server sees is the paper we're handing in, it has no idea if we cheated or not.
Boring technical explanation:
For a server (in this case, YouTube) to see what a client (your computer) is doing, it has to reach out and ask it. When a request is made, the two points will 'handshake' to confirm that they heard the request, then when they've done it. It looks something like this:
These steps can be repeated any number of times in response to a single user mouseclick, depending on what you're trying to do. A 'request timeout' error is what happens if client/server asks "are you prepared?" and it takes too long for the server/client to answer "yes, I am", so you hang up the phone.
For the server to treat clients differently at all, it needs to contact them for feedback. For adblocking, it has to ask your client if you're adblocking. Usually the server does this by sending the client a request to serve an ad - if your client never answers back to confirm it was loaded, then the server knows you blocked the ad. The devs can tell the server that if it doesn't get a certain answer, to enable the punishment effects. (They'll technically be sent anyway; they're just hidden/disabled by default if your client handshakes the ad.)
What these scripts do is lie to the server. The server asks the client if we received the ad, we ignore the script that checks whether the ad is loaded and instead directly change the answer to claim it has. Since all the server sees is the confirmation, it doesn't know the difference.
Probably get shit for this, but…
I just pay for Premium.
YT has literally become my cable. I listen to music, watch movies, documentaries, stand up comedy, news, sports… and cat videos, obviously.
To me it’s just worth it to pay a bit of money each month and have the whole thing just available to me.
I feel like if you were to put a money value on all the complaining, stomping of feet and trying to side-step the ads I’ve seen over the last several years, you’d probably find it’s actually less to just pay and enjoy it.
Just my opinion, of course…
you do you if you use it that much and you think it's worth your money then good for you ( i honestly mean it ) we don't like youtube ads, YES that is true but it is not the only reason :
the list goes on but what i want to say is that we don't hate people who pay for youtube we hate those who defend the platform like it's a white knight and nothing shady happening in it
I pay for Indian Youtube Premium with Revolut
VPN to India, Revolut Rupee "account", virtual debit card and an Indian street name generator
I'm doing it with Spotify :]
Google sucks and YouTube is evil.
If they were not such an explicitly and overtly shitty company, I'd pay for premium no qualms.
As it is, I wouldn't give them a dollar if the CEO would personally suck me off.
It's the principle of the matter to me. Google became the multibillion dollar corporation it is by selling my data, your data, everyones data. To then come around and demand I pay to continue using their service the way I have for over a decade? But also still continue selling our data? Nah, fuck that. When they cut me in a percentage on the data selling business, maybe then I'd consider premium.
I agree if they charged around half price of Netflix I would be more interested.
And the part with supporting the creators. I don't trust Google to give more than pennies to them regardless if I pay or not, I use other ways to support the ones I follow.
As for the last part, if Linus from LTT is to be believed (I usually trust his opinions), on the WAN show they were discussing this just last night and he said that the majority of YouTube premium revenue goes to the creators. Or, rather he said that YouTube doesn't pocket the majority so there could be some tricky nuances in there somewhere but he seemed to indicate that the creators get more than YouTube does in that deal.
I’ve heard this before too. TikTok is particularly bad, but twitch was worse than YouTube. Not sure about any of these newer ones.
Okay that's good to hear!
Well, just use a vpn and subscribe in another country. You can even make a family account and add your current account and maybe some friends to your „family“. Turkey seems pretty cheap, like 1,50€ / month. That’s the route I will follow when YT is showing me this message on my account.
You're paying for premium, but you're not paying it to people producing the content you enjoy. You're paying it to a middle man parasite. Content creators get a tiny fraction of your money.
Paying because they made it deliberately difficult to use without paying is akin to giving the bully your lunch money because it's better "money value" than standing up for yourself. That's not something I can do without losing respect for myself.
And my "trying to side step the ads" has so far taken a total of 30 seconds - installing uBlock origin, which I would have done anyway.
Besides, to use premium you need to be logged in. Being logged in Google outside of a contained environment is idiotic if you have a shred of respect for your own privacy.
That middle-man parasite enables those creators to upload their content for free and provides the bandwidth and discovery for everyone here to watch them. It's a give and take relationship. I don't see the problem here, especially as creators get more money from Premium viewers than they do ad-supported viewers. Sure you would get more from a direct payment from the viewer, but you're not subscribing to every creator you watch either.
You know that this parasite in the first place enables creators to make a living? Youtube also has the best revenue split between it and the creators. They're storing exabytes of data for you, watchable at any time, in any resolution you'd like. Google has been running Youtube at a loss for a long time and ads are not going to cover the costs. They need paying users. 12.99$ a month for more videos than Netflix, Amazon Prime etc.... , unlimited music streaming and even giving your favorite creators more money (they get more revenue from premium members than from free "ad-viewing" members) is not a lot to ask for. Stop your Spotify or Netflix or Hulu or Sky subscription and get youtube premium.
@FederalAlienSmuggler
@whatsarefoogee
what forum do you think you are posting on lmao
@FederalAlienSmuggler
@whatsarefoogee
back in my day "pay the artists, fuck the platforms" was the motto
The likening to cable is noteworthy because cable started as a means of "tv without those pesky ads" and then...
I also have been paying for Premium the last couple years and I completely agree. I get more value out of my premium subscription than I do Netflix or Max. Plus premium supports the creators more than ads do.
I had your same mindset for years but the cost of premium went up this year and when looking at the new price vs other streaming services, it didn't make sense for my family any more. If their AdBlock thing starts screwing with my account, I just might be done with all Google products.
It's especially worth it if you can get a sub from a developing country
Hold on, this sounds like a secret way to save moneh
You can do it via VPN. Just a quick Google search found something but the link keeps getting edited for some reason. Just google it yourself
Tip: Don't use Nord VPN. Try Mullvad if you're going this route.
No, all your reasoning so far just comes to the conclusion that you will pay for ad-free Super Premium.
just get revanced
I just don't get how these providers (Specifically Reddit with the API lockdown and now the stranglehold on mods, Twitter's new login requirement, and YouTube now cracking down on adblockers) are missing the point that their sites live and die by user generated content.
I understand these sites are hugely expensive to run, but if you keep alienating those who are bringing users to your site in the first place, people will stop submitting and people will stop visiting.
To everyone who is saying they use adblock and haven't seen this yet: YouTube probably rolled this out to a smaller percentage of users first. It allows them to understand how this change impacts user behaviour, e.g. how many users comply and disable their adblocker, how many more users close YouTube than usual etc. Most tech companies do this type of analysis before releasing a high impact change to all users.
If you're demanding I watch ads, it's not "free". you're demanding my time and probably attention.
I really think we need to stop with this idea that "Something is free" because no money is exchanged. Some stuff ARE free, there are repos on git, where you can download software, there are websites that ask for nothing. However Gmail, Youtube, reddit, and the rest are not "Free" just because they aren't directly asking for money.
Firefox
I'm not paying for YouTube. It's algorithm sucks, it routinely sells your personal data, and virtually none of the money you spend goes to its creators--that YouTube pretends otherwise is repulsive. How did we get in the situation where we're being asked to pay more and more for worse and worse services? I'm not gonna be a part of it.
Unfortunately that's always the end result as never ending greed will always lead companies there
I'll never be okay with ads *on social media. They're invasive and serve no purpose. I know the psychology behind it but if you're the type of person to buy something just because you saw an ad I think you need mental help.
*Edited for clarity. I know some advertising is necessary but not ads on social media
serve no purpose
Now that part is objectively incorrect
You're not wrong like I said I know the psychology behind it I suppose I meant the types of online advertisements YouTube uses for example. It's one thing to advertise new products. It's another thing entirely to watch another ad about banking or shit like that.
Yea, their algorithm has gotten really bad for me. The new to you tag is a little better but it's still not great.
I get that servers, bandwidth, manpower, utilities and buildings aren't free, and with more and more people using ad blocking, all that user data they have harvested isn't worth much anymore. So I think we are going to see an increase in subscription based services, and man do I hate it.
Because You just know it's going to increase and squeeze evey last dime from their users. Because it's never enough to have their expenses covered and earn some money.. They constantly need to earn more. Just look at Netflix, declining in contents, increasing restrictions and rising price.
The way that YouTube treats their users and content creators for that matter, I'll never enter a subscription from there. Removing features, blocking people with no way of appealing and letting scammers and spammers run rampant on their platform. Yeah, no thanks.
I used to love using YouTube for music, it was great at suggesting new and exciting music. But then it was split into a separate service and they nuked the algorithm. Now I can discover music by popularity or moods, and as someone whos into EDM, hardstyle, rock, metal and heavy metal.. that's a piss poor way to find new music.
YouTube these days is insufferable, its why I don't bother with it too much anymore. Two pre-roll ads, then two ads after about two minutes, then two more before the end and then two more at the end. And the problem is that you can't skip through a video without getting ads. So lets say you watch 30 second and then skip, well bam, two new ads even though you only watched 30 seconds. Its so goddamn annoying and they need to lessen the amount.
I wouldnt use youtube without newpipe/ adblock either. When i am at somebody elses place, i am just baffled by the amount of trash google tries to ram down your eyes. And the more ads they serve, the more people will be done with it and either get premium or look for options to get rid of it.
Even though it seems like more and more website now lock out adblock-users, i am confident that eventually there will be a "next-gen" of adblocks, that in turn circuvent these lock outs
Neat lil app. Would be nice if you were able to see all the YouTube playlists for a creator. When you go to a creators YouTube channel, it just lists a bunch of their random videos.
Also, a screencast functionality would be good too!
Same, I've seen posts saying it only affects people who use chrome
It's more like google's style to release a brand new non-standard, insanely difficult to implement "standard" for "the web" which is "vital" for youtube to work. So then your browser is "not supported".
That's when you fake the user-agent :)
More people should try out Tubesync. It's a tool you can host yourself that essentially uses yt-dl as a backend and lets you subscribe to channels, and it'll download videos as they come out. Gets you away from the ads and you can archive content you like forever.
If in the future they make it completely impossible to use ad blockers I'll just stop actively using YouTube. I hope a good enough alternative comes around.
I've heard it is quite difficult to make one.
The back and forth between YouTube and the adblock developers ought to get interesting.
I'm not so sure that this is anything to worry about. It's just another step in the game of cat and mouse. Is it annoying? Of course! But if/when it goes mainstream, ad blockers are just going to push updates that make it possible to block the ad block blocker. uBlock Origin does a really good job at blocking ad block blockers on most sites.
I think it's less enforceable than they think - every system someone sets up will eventually be circumvented.
It'll be a pain for a few months, or we'll see a federated alt pick up creators.
I think ublock already got around this no? I have had 0 issues
Greed didn't lead someone, this is a shareholder entity. Each shareholder doesn't even have to think about greed. The entity does it all for them. That's why companies can do horrible things and everyone can sleep at night. It's always the entity that did it not them. Shareholders are the root of all evil in this world today.
We need to reclaim the internet
Sure, once we pay for it.
This statement is extremely stupid. YouTube is a free service to you. It is dammed expensive to run, and they pay for it by showing you ads. It's the exact same thing as ltelevision channels that show ads. it's paid for by ads. You are not freeing the internet by blocking ads, you're driving the content providers to have no money. I hate ads as much as anyone but unless you want to pay $20 a month for YouTube, then stop whining
Don’t come at me with a toxic Reddit attitude. The issue is not about paying for a service. For example, people are willing to donate to the fediverse to keep servers running. The problem is that the current state of the internet is dominated by paywalls, tracking and ads. Even if I paid for YouTube they’d still track me, feed me garbage from an algorithm and try to sell things to me (relentlessly).
YouTube wants to double dip by collecting and selling your data, and forcing you to either get served ads or pay them $15/month. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
When hulu put unskippable ads on my premium subscription, I switched to pirating.
Are you talking about pre-roll ads for other shows on the platform? That was the norm before Netflix. HBO has done it for most of their existence.
Lemmy can rely on donations now, but I don't see that being a long term solution for Lemmy. I won't be surprised if instances go bankrupt in the future.
Most people perfere ads over paying.
And the algorithm is very useful to discover new content, most of the people I follow is thanks to the algorithm.
And that is hypocrite comment. Let's block all ads and now you have to donate every site you visit... No one like ads but that's how things work.
I disagree with reddit approach, but is like some devs were making no money, if millions a years is making no money.
Even if the 3rd party Reddit app developers were making millions, it’s because people chose to support them over using Reddit’s app. Ask yourself why did people want to give the 3rd party devs money? It’s because these apps offered a better experience that wasn’t ridden with ads or tracking.
That proves my point, that people will pay for things that they want.
Show me where I said that we should “block all ads and donate to every site”. You’re jumping to conclusions and thinking in hyperboles.
More devices, content, and people are online than ever before, and the user experience has never been worse. It is one of the most significant advancements in human history, and its not-so-slowly going to shit because of corporate greed.
It's Google's right to serve ads however they want, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't call for a competitor that doesn't treat users like garbage.
I will still use invidious while having muy subscriptions saved as RSS feeds so this change will go over my head
let me bring you up to speed a couple days ago YouTube legal team threatened invidious devs saying they are abusing their API ToS ( trems of service ) which the devs said that the claim does not hold any truth to it since invidious is just youtube proxy\scraper and does not depend on API
This just tells me that invidious is in their crosshairs but it is legally safe until YouTube tries taking them to court to create precedent over scraping webpages
We already have precedent that it's entirely legal. Making an argument that individual scraping should be illegal is practically impossible.
Scraping in this context is just accessing a public web resource and rendering it locally. The only difference with a browser is a customized interface.
So to make scrapping illegal they would either make accessing a public web resource illegal (ban the internet) or make formatting the accessed web resource illegal (make it illegal to use any software to view the accessed public web material, including browsers).
I really don't think it's greed. Can't blame em for trying to win the cat/mouse game of adblocking. I'm sure it's not the end of the world, and new ways to circumvent this will show up.
while i agree to some extent it never been that aggressive before, have you heard that dial-er and SMS apps are no longer included in the android open source stock making it bit harder for custom roms maintainers
Google wants to maintain control of Android. In theory, Android is open source. However, Google doesn't want the open source bits to be enough to create a competitor.
I've been using a variety of LibreTube and revanced on my phone and tablet as I only have mobile devices.
For the first time I opened a link which went to the native app, OMG it is unusable with ads.
If that's the expected way of using YouTube then I'm out, especially as I live in a location where I can't pay for Premium even if I wanted to
While I agree in theory, Youtube has been a money pit for Google for its entire existence. It feels a little odd for them to suddenly start caring now.
Beyond that, I've seen a lot of discussion lately about how ads have gotten worse over time, and I agree. The old, entirely text, adwords ads that didn't try to masquerade as content are one thing. I'd be a lot more likely to allow that type. Instead, most ads now are obnoxious video, animated, scroll highjacking, etc. We've entered a crappy feedback loop where ads aren't as effective, so companies are more likely to make obnoxious ads to get the most ROI, so people who might use adblockers are more likely to use them to try and preserve a smooth browsing experience.
There's also an argument to be made that despite the absurd amount of data collection going on, ad targeting is still pretty shitty. If I was getting ads for things I was interested in, I might be more likely to allow them.
Ultimately I think the genie is out of the bottle on this. People who are likely to use ad blockers aren't likely to change without a large overhaul in the ad industry, and the ad industry can't afford to make those changes while still maintaining profits.
All internet companies have been caring a lot more about service profitability since the rise in interest rates. Unprofitable companies are scrambling to make money and profitable companies are killing divisions that don't have a clear path to profitably.
The Internet being so abundant that everything would be free hasn't really come about. The costs to serve a video may be fractions of a cent, but it is still not something you can round to zero yet.
Can’t blame em for trying to win the cat/mouse game of adblocking.
IDK; I blame them.
YouTube has become part of the world's social infrastructure. In a way, it is the town square.
Frankly it should be publicly owned.
Well, that's not in YouTube's interest, so I don't know how you can blame them for not being publicly owned.
If it somehow magically becomes publicly owned, your bills/taxes will reflect that (as they do with TV in many countries, it just gets added to the monthly electricity bill, whether you use it or not).
Okay. I can dig a publicly owned YouTube.
Are you willing to spend your tax dollars hosting flat earth content?
Far right? Thinly disguised racism?
It’s ironic: but at least by paying based on what is watched, you give money to those you consume.
We can pay for it by eating just a few of the rich.
My friend saw this using ABplus, he just switched to using a piped instance for the time being. I haven't seen it at all using ublock origin. Though they said this is a "small test" so it's possible I just am not in the test.
Long live Piped!
Still waiting for ISPs to change their model ever since “net neutrality” was abolished. With all of this shit with YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit coming down the pipe it really does feel there has been a global change in how corporations are squeezing their customers. I am guessing ISPs are waiting for the bulk of services to change their model before they sweep in with their greed. It’s coming.
YouTubeDL + Plex
Not so crazy anymore.
Reddit is to Lemmy what YouTube is to PeerTube. We have options!
Anyone seen any issues with revanced for this? I haven't experienced anything but curious if anyone has ran into anything.
Is there any adblockers that still work on YouTube?
Ublock Origin is working for now.
Pihole/Adguard on your home network. Phones? Brave browser with adguard DNS works pretty great.
Pihole/Adguard on your home network. Phones? Brave browser with adguard DNS works pretty great.
Which will provide the motivation to remove DRM from the web standards, as it should have never existed in the first place.
Lol motivation to whom? And yes, it shouldn't be part of the standard. It shouldn't be a thing. But all of FAANG are DRM enthusiasts, so it's not going anywhere unfortunately. Best you'll be able to do is use a browser that doesn't display content served by FAANG and friends.
I know this may be blasphemy but if you use a VPN to sign up from certain countries you can get YouTube premium for like 25 bucks for the year. Haven't tried it personally but I've seen it mentioned a million times.
If they go to war with adblockers though some one smarter then me will probably come out with a way to just download the video and cut out ads post.
Valid point, and again I haven't done this myself, but it seems you only need the VPN for the initial sign up and then you can login normally after that. Not perfect for everyone but an option to consider.
Also, and I guess I'm making a huge assumption but I'd imagine most people here have access to a VPN
Holy cow, is the real? On YouTube desktop? Or just on mobile?
I feel like we had a good relationship as it was. I don’t feel like ad blockers are mainstream enough to hinder revenue. But these changes are pushing me to divest from the platform. I’ve shared fewer YT links in discord since they went after the music bots.
makes invidious even more important, https://docs.invidious.io/instances/
I just use SmartTube on my FireTV. I’m not paying for YouTube.
Revanced: Blocked, huh? You don't say.
Cant see yet
I will probably sub to premium pretty soon for one simple reason: The creators I watch still get paid on their demonetized videos, whether it be comedy or videos on real life things it seems most of what I watch falls under the category of frequently demonetized content.
Man, what is happening to social media
Forced ads? No YouTube then.
Piped/libretube ftw!
This is called A/B testing. They're rolling the feature out only to some users to see if it has the effect they're going for, before rolling it out to more, or all users. (Also to ensure there are no bugs introduced by the changes.)
Even for the music alone it's pretty much the same price as Spotify. It's not a terrible value proposition.
Yeah it’s basically been essential to me since the last place I use YouTube is actually on my computer. It’s usually on my phone and on my tv and there’s not a way around it on Roku afaik and I don’t feel like sideloading an app.
i've never seen this using librewolf + ublock + /etc/hosts
The mains stream proprietary corporations seem to be full of themselves recently, or maybe it was a slow-time coming situation. These sorts of lock-down moves are good, because it forces people to open their eyes on censorship and look for alternatives (fediverse/open source.)
My FreeTube still works, but I also have my alternative platforms I view.
“Allowlisted”?
Are we not allowed to say white/black anymore?
I wonder if this blocks VPN based adblocks like Mullvad
Does anyone know if ublock is gonna get blocked too? Since some sites dont even register it. My ublock still works on youtube. Besides its always an arms race between adblockers and sites. Theres bound to be a workaround
Must say I'm glad they're doing this. Helps me stay off the platform and be more productive after the 3 videos, and requires me to plan which 3 videos I want to watch. If all addictive platforms had these self-moderating features, I'd definitely use them.
I'd happily for youtube premium if it was reasonably priced but it's like 5x above a reasonable price.
After youtube vanced got nuked by google I caved and bought youtube premium... But I am only paying $2 CAD a month. The workaround is that I am subscribed through Youtube Argentina.
Honestly I tried it in its early stages and wasn't too happy with it and I use youtube music alot with android auto so the subscription just made sense and for only 2 dollars a month it isn't too bad.
Well you showed that fucking over users makes them money. Thanks a bunch.
The alternatives simply do not meet my needs, at 2 dollars a month I can justify the purchase for myself. This is the only subscription I have anyway.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Google is an ad company. To them, a web browser is nothing more than a tool for collecting user data and delivering ads.
When you use a chromium based browser you are allowing google, an ad company, to decide what the future of web browsing should look like. And this is the result.
Firefox is the ONLY browser which is genuinely competing with google. Do you think ad and tracking blockers are going to get better or worse once they die out, and literally every major browser is running on chromium?
Use firefox and u-block origin. Enjoy a superior, ad free, browsing experience, and support the future of an open web.
save