• kadu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    267
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    YouTube’s argument is the same as Linus’ from LTT: if you watch a video without ads, you’re failing to comply with your side of the transaction, thus essentially pirating that content and stealing the revenue source.

    Regardless if we agree or not with that statement, I’ll absolutely side with adblockers always for a deeper issue: it’s my screen, so I get the ultimate say on what content gets rendered. Quite literally. It’s my network, my cable, my screen, my graphics card, my web browser running JavaScript on my CPU - you do not, ever, get to overreach and decide what pixels show up or not. If I don’t want your obnoxious ad for an AI girlfriend to show up, there’s no moral argument to be had here.

    EDIT: I think some of you are missing the point of this comment. There’s no reason to reply to me countering the argument in the first paragraph, as it is not my comment, in fact, I specifically mentioned how it’s YouTube (and Linus’) argument.

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      By that logic using a VCR to record television and fast-forwarding adverts is piracy.

      • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        9 months ago

        And you see digital tv providers trying to implement fast forward blockers without chasing away their customers too much

        • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          8 months ago

          Any time I fast forward and have to wait for a commercial that interrupted my fast forwarding, it’s an immediate cancelation of the service and I’m on the phone with customer support to try and get my couple of bucks for that month back.

          Fuck your shitty service, I’m grabbing my hat and sword.

      • StrawberryPigtails@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        9 months ago

        That argument was in fact made when VCRs first came out. I don’t remember how exactly it played out but in the end the courts here in the US said that VCRs were fine.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        8 months ago

        The agreement isn’t that you watch the ad, but that you allow the ad to play on your device. That’s it. Whether or not you see it or hear it doesn’t matter; the “cost” for this type of content is a few moment of your device’s time, not your attention.

    • Aeri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      9 months ago

      TBH I’m just so fucking tired of ads overstepping, back in the day there’s be a little banner on the side of a page advertising a truck or whatever, I’m sick of seeing like, enormous length ads.

      One day I had a 3 hour minecraft let’s play uploaded as an ad, you think I should have to watch all of that youtube?

      And the frequency is getting crazy.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          First off, I couldn’t care less about ad blocking and I’m not here to moralise what anyone else does.

          I do however think your point is somewhat undermined by the fact YouTube have an ad free option. You can legitimately make the ads disappear and YouTube have no issue with it.

      • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        When YouTube Red first dropped they were putting hour-long pilot episodes of their shows as pre-roll ads. Now I notice ads on shorts are full of obvious scams related to “new monthly health credits”. Still better than getting an ad on Facebook reels that was uncensored hardcore porn.

        • Aeri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m almost thinking of breaking down and buying YT premium because god, I watch a lot of youtube (I’d go so far as to say it’s my primary entertainment stream at times) but I’m already paying so fucking much for cable that I don’t even want.

          Cable’s 80, Internet’s 80, somehow extra fees bring it up to nearly 200, and I can’t convince other members of my household (who watch a grand total of four fucking channels, MSNBC, Weather channel, sports, etc) that we should ditch cable, absolutely miserable.

          • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            For Android on phones and tablets look up Revanced. You have to download the YouTube .apk from somewhere like apkmirror, then use the Revanced manager to apply patches to block ads and change functionality. Then you log into your account with their own version of MicroG/gmscore. It was briefly affected by the issue in the main post but was working again in a few hours.

            For Android-based smart TVs and streaming devices there’s SmartTube (SmartTubeNext). Not sure how well they’ll do if YouTube goes cat and mouse though.

            And for a wider variety of devices (including Apple TV and now WebOS) there’s also Kodi which has a YouTube addon although logging in with it is kind of a pain as you need to get API keys, etc.

            & finally on a desktop browser uBlock Origin alone handles all the ads pretty well, and you can optionally add Sponsorblock.

            Oh. And check out some of the over the top TV services and see if there are any cheap ones that might meet your needs to replace cable. Though the way the cable companies do their bundling even that might not save you much as the net might jump up to more than $80 standalone.

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’d agree with that logic if YouTube kept up their end of the bargain and actually vetted their ad buyers. Instead they show ads for fake stimulus scams, fake news, and blatant malware.

      I manage a large network and ads are blocked at the edge of the network. Not using an adblocker is a security risk that is not acceptable for my company. I pay for YouTube premium because it’s in my means and I get value from the subscription but I don’t blame anyone who takes the same approach

    • Kid_Thunder@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The problem is that there is that ad networks and ad placements are just bad actors in the consumer space. Not only has malware been passed time and time again with ads but also false ads to malware. When that happens suddenly the content creator/website/whatever ‘isn’t responsible’ for it. Then there’s the issue of ads being placed everywhere slowing down websites but even worse, getting in the way with auto play audio and video, videos autoscrolling over the content you’re trying to read or whatever, etc.

      As a consumer, I should not and ethically do not need to worry about another’s business model. If the business model fails simply because I don’t allow something that model depends on to traverse my network then it is on them to figure it out. If the ads get in the way of the content, then I just want consume the content anyway.

      Some news websites use Ad Admiral or whatever it is called and I haven’t bothered trying to bypass the adblock wall for them. I just simply consume the content elsewhere.

      If ads were ever responsibly used or perhaps could be argued that there is compromise where consumers wouldn’t mind, then there’d probably be a lot less ad blocker usage. It’s like anything else. When it takes less effort to install an adblocker to have an OK experience, then ad blockers will be popular.

      I was around before ad blockers were very popular and even before pop-up blockers were around. Ads kept getting worse which is why ad blockers became more popular and more sophisticated. The Internet had ads for years before ad blockers were the norm.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah I wasn’t using an Adblock on YouTube when this all started. Then the ads got so intrusive it was seriously hindering content. These days I don’t watch much YouTube, but it’s with Adblock

    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage. I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn’t a dumpster fire of decaying babies.

      The few people I sub do and do yt as a monitory source, I support elsewhere. Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man and simultaneously playing the victim.

      • vithigar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean, the argument falls short when YT (or LTT) spew literal garbage.

        The fact that you don’t like the product doesn’t really change that their expected transaction is “watch an ad to receive it”. Every argument against the idea of not watching the ads being piracy seems to be, essentially, either “the product isn’t good” or “the price is too high”, neither of which is relevant to the fact that they’ve put a “price” on it and you’re skipping the part where you “pay”.

        Quality of the videos is irrelevant. Intrusiveness of the ads is irrelevant. The ads are the price, the videos are the product. You’re getting the videos without seeing the ads.

        I agree that the “price” is too high, the ads are awful, and the videos are frequently bad. I will continue to block those ads as long as I am able, but I’m not going to delude myself into thinking that I’m not skipping out on the cheque, as it were, when I do so.

        I might have a hint of sympathy if it wasn’t a dumpster fire of decaying babies.

        Literally no one is asking you to have any sympathy. Why get so defensive when it’s pointed out that skipping ads is skipping on your side of the transaction when using an ad supported service?

        • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I liked the service up until ~2016 and was a yt red family subscriber. Then they upped the prices, then they started pushing more ads + more frequently, then they got butthurt about third-party apps, then they raised prices again…

          My “expected transaction” is to host decent-or-better content (not shovel clickbait disinformation nonsense) in a fashion that is palatable to me, and they are failing miserably on the first and are fighting to fail miserably on the second. If you go to a restaurant expecting decent food but are served actual shit, are you going to be like ‘thank you sir may I have some more’? We have been the frog in the pot of boiling water for the last 15+ years of bullshit like this, where a company makes a compelling product, then makes it shit but incrementally so ‘it’s not so bad compared to the last update’ but compared to a few years ago it’s completely garbage. And they want more money for a worse experience? Are for fucking shitting me?

          Quality of the content is relevant. I guarantee you aren’t going to the movies to watch something that scored a 4% on RT. Everyone wants to be like’ poor yt/alphabet, they only got 63 billion this quarter 'but if it was a real issue they’d be doing stuff like charging fees to upload content (goodbye 9 year-olds screaming about fortnite skins) or something else to curb the amount of content they host. Google knew what they were getting into when they bought yt - at least they sure as fuck should. Nobody has ever made a profitable video service afaik. There’s what, yt, vimeo, and… liveleak is dead, uh… crickets.

          I’m not even pretending to skip out on the bill. I’m screaming from my table “this is fucking terrible and you should all feel awful about it” before proudly walking out.

          Also I’m not asking for sympathy? I’m saying “this service has turned to shit”. Also none of my above comment, or this, is defensive; it’s being pissed off that a company is fucking people on both sides of the transaction and still complaining that they don’t get enough of a cut, while actively making their service worse for their customers and doing nothing to save it themselves. They are a sinking ship complaining that they need more help chucking buckets of water overboard, while they simultaneously poke additional holes in it.

          • vithigar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t really disagree with any of that, and it’s all a great argument in favour of just not using YouTube. Hell, it might even be a good argument in favour of using it as much as possible while blocking ads just to consume bandwidth on their dime while denying them ad revenue.

            None of it really counters the idea that using it without viewing ads is skipping out on “paying” for that usage, which is the entire “argument” being presented, which you claimed falls short. The content being bad doesn’t change the fact that they expect you to view ads (or pay) to see that content, and we’re not paying.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Fuck YouTube acting as a sleezy middle-man

        A sleezy middleman that happens to foot the YT infrastructure bill.

    • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Linus Short Sebastian is an asshole. I like his channel and even bought a water bottle, but he is an asshole nontheless. His opinions are always 5 years outdated. He used to hate reddit but now liked Reddit. Probably a contrarian too.

    • MakePorkGreatAgain@lemmy.basedcount.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      if a content creator doesnt want people to be able to skip the ads/demonetize the content, then they should post on a platform that makes ads mandatory.

      problem is that no one will watch crap on that sort of platform

    • net00@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The same Linus who can’t be arsed to spend $500 of various people’s time to properly test a product is now telling us what to do?

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I don’t see how that’s relevant. If you want to engage in the paid YouTube subscription, go for it, it’s an entirely different thing though.

        My computer requests from YouTube’s server a video, the server gives me a stream of data - I didn’t steal it, I didn’t hack it, the server provided me this because it wanted to - and this stream contains an ad and a video. What I do with this stream is only my concern, you can’t force me to watch the ad. That would be like walking in the street and somebody says you’re unethical because you didn’t look at an outdoor advertisement banner, and that you will be forced to either pay a fee or look at the ad.

          • kadu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I have no social contract with YouTube. The whole “if you access this site, you agree with this ToS” isn’t even legally valid here.

    • pop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      My guy, that’s why there is DRM. Your screen are loading pixels, because they let you. Those third party apps and frontends work because they let the users have a little freedoms.

      If you steal something off the mall and bring it to your home, it doesn’t make it yours. People thinking all that code, infrastructure and labour to run something on the internet should be free because they have an internet connection are entitled as the sovcit bunch. Just cringe.

      Advertisers, Malwares and Ad blockers are all to blame for the current state of the internet. We’re heading for paywalled internet and entitled basement dwellers are going to complain you miss the “old internet”

      Seriously, I use adblockers but the rationale people make up for this like countless others are just plain stupid.

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        My guy, that’s why there is DRM. Your screen are loading pixels, because they let you.

        When I ping YouTube’s server it provides me with a stream that contains an ad and a video. What I do with that stream is my problem, and if I want to chop it up it’s something I can freely decide.

        Your server can send any data it wants, but it can’t decide what I do with it, are you nuts?

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        MY hardware and infrastructure was not free either and I and ONLY I get to decide how it is used.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        8 months ago

        Advertisers, Malwares and Ad blockers are all to blame for the current state of the internet.

        So the thing that blocks the first two is equally to blame?

        I remember the day I started using an Ad blocker. I used to not care at all about ads on sites, “it’s how they make money. I can live with it.” And then I encountered a banner ad that screamed “HELOOOOOOO!” every time my mouse went over it. I couldn’t download an ad blocker fast enough.

        Advertisers and Malware are to blame for Ad blockers. Advertisers will get more and more annoying and intrusive until people reach the point that they won’t put up with them anymore. Seeing as the internet is one big bucket and I can’t block some ads, then I will block all ads.

      • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        If something allows it then it’s morally justified. You can’t be naked intentionally and ask me to not look at same time.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I was watching a long video on chromecast today and I had ads every three minutes or so. That’s a two hours video. The amount of ads is disgusting.

      YouTube is unwatchable without an ad blocker.

    • TitanLaGrange@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is why I pay for YT Premium. No way in hell am I watching ads, but I do want to be able to use the platform, and the money has to come from somewhere. So far it’s been pretty good value, although SponsorBlock is of course still required.

      • Moghul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I would like to pay for YT Premium, but I think the service is bad. The product is good, and the service is bad.

        If I say I don’t want to see this video, I don’t want to see this fucking video again, youtube. I said don’t recommend this channel, and you said I won’t see it again, but I just refreshed, and there it is. I am not dutch, I don’t speak dutch, I’ve never even been to the Netherlands. I shouldn’t be seeing videos in dutch.

        Routinely, I have to go through my home page and try to train the algorithm but I’ve just given up. I got an extension now that just permanently removes channels and videos I don’t want to see.

        The thing is… the product is the videos, and youtube doesn’t do the videos. Youtube does the service, and the service is bad. I understand that the ads pay the youtubers but the truth is I don’t care. That pay is trash, and if they want my premium money, youtubers should unionize and force youtube to improve the service.

        Edit: I watch the youtuber’s sponsor spot and I buy merch.

        • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Hell YEAH they should unionize!!! YouTube has m effectively NO system in place for recourse when their shitty system fucks up and decides to nuke someone’s channel - Such as, when “supporting subject a” is against YouTube policy, a channel may make a video criticizing others who support “subject a”, YouTube’s stupid algorithm will punish them FOR AGREEING WITH YOUTUBE and never actually manually review their shit when it fucks up. A union can grab YouTube by the nuts and FORCE THEM TO LISTEN and that is painfully needed. Unions force power structures to listen to democracy and I like democracy. MORE UNIONS! the people DOING the fucking work need to be heard!

      • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yes - AND I like that being a premium subscriber compensates creators I watch EVEN WHEN they are otherwise “demonetized” - like, if they cover news and the news contains upsetting information, YouTube will reduce their ad exposure. But my views still award them as much credit as ever, and count for, like, dozens of ad-supported views under normal circumstances.

  • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    9 months ago

    I haven’t seen an anti adblocker popup on youtube for a couple months now, I though they gave up. It looks like the uBlock developers and block list maintainers are just doing an excellent job staying ahead of whatever youtube is doing.

      • rar@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Bless the Revanced guys. They made my mobile youtube binge watches as smooth as my desktop firefox + ublock setup.

  • FrostKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Personally, I don’t think a service is in the wrong for trying to protect against ad block, especially when their revenue comes from ads. However I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with adblockers continuing to innovate to circumvent that. I’m rooting for Ublock Origin lol

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      8 months ago

      they also fucked themselves over with the ad skill issues they’ve had over the years. Advertisers now find it to be more worthwhile to advertise directly with creators, though that also means they make a lot more money, so.

      They kinda dug their own grave, to be honest.

      • force@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        What made me and I imagine a large chunk of other people convert to revanced/similar apps is the super aggressive advertising, it’s impossible to use youtube when you get a double ad before and after every 5 second video and get 30 second midrolls every like 3 minutes. You can’t skip through a video to find the part you want to see because you’ll just get an ad. It’s extremely infuriating and time-consuming, it used to be where I was willing to deal with it but they fucked it up. Now I can never go back to ad-riddled YouTube, even if it has a “reasonable” amount of advertising (I am now in the belief that no amount of advertising is reasonable anymore though).

        • GCanuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yup. I was willing to watch one or two short ads before I watch a video, but the mid rolls and unskippable 30+second ads just made me say “well that’s enough of that”. Now I haven’t seen a YouTube ad in a long time.

        • Renorc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Exactly. They lost their minds and went too far. Now I’ll never go back either.

        • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yes. Same. I was OK with banner ads. I was OK with intro ads. Started to get pissed off and annoyed at mid way ads, double ads, and unskippable ads. This is my nightmare. I hate this world and ads are a part of my pyramid of hell.

      • bcron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not only monetization but also the whole sorting/ranking algorithms. Youtube is a bit better than Facebook reels and instagram due to the thumbs down button, but some people go out of their way to make nonsensical garbage because viewers will then comment, and there’s no way to tell if a video is good or bad based solely on engagement. Those videos where people have some DIY hack to clean a toilet bowl and they just pour random condiments in the toilet for 3 minutes and cut the video before any conclusion, those types of videos

  • rasakaf679@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    One 10-15 sec ad for an 5-10 mins video would be fair. Because if you calculate the ad shown in Cable TV it was similar I would watch them no problem. But NOOO these greedy fckrs want 3-5 ads of >15secs unskipable ads shoved down our throats. They have record profits. In a business if you are in profit then it’s a good thing. But these fcks want to increase profit year by year, not stable profit for the number of users. That want infinite growth and profit from a finite source and they crazy or what? So if anyone says blocking ads on YouTube is piracy, then fck you and those greedy fckrs. They crossed the limit long time ago and they are reaping what they had sowed.

    • Ginger666@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      No amount of ads are “fair”

      I’m done wasting my life for other people.

      Go ahead tho, you do you boo

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m done wasting my life for other people.

        I do enough of that at work as it is. I’ll be fucked if I do it during my downtime, too.

      • lledrtx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        How do you propose YouTube should pay for infrastructure costs (servers, Internet etc), staff costs (engineers, designers, moderators) and the content creators?

        • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago

          Google Ads on the webpages of all the webpages on the Internet, similar to their status quo.

          I don’t think any of us should be concerned about Google’s cash flow. It’s their job.

          • lledrtx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Are you saying that the ads shouldn’t be video ads but webpage ads, instead?

            It’s their job.

            Yeah, exactly why they are enforcing anti-adblock rules…

        • Iceblade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          I would’ve been fine paying if the price reflected what I was actually paying for (not being advertised to) which would be <$0.005 per viewed video (let’s be generous and call it 1 or 2$/mo) but noo they have to ask for 25$/month like greedy little shits.

          • lledrtx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            That price wouldn’t even begin to cover it. Infrastructure is expensive at that quality. Engineers to maintain such infrastructure are also expensive. Content creators make a ton of money too. Their profits are much lower compared to peers - https://mannhowie.com/youtube-valuation

            Also, 22$/month gets you a family plan for 5 people so wtf are you talking about?

            I don’t give 2 shits about YouTube, I use ad block where I can too. I’m just saying that people who complain about YouTube’s anti-adblock stuff are being unrealistic, you can’t fault them for trying to block people from stealing from them.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      They’re publicly traded, they have to. Thats not an excuse mind you, but if you ever like a service and they go public, just understand the end users are no longer the focus.

    • piskertariot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Television shows are 22-24 minutes, because cable TV should show 6-8 minutes of ads every half hour. 30 second ads in blocks of 3 or 4, multiple times per show.

      15 seonds ads are almost too short for a trip to the kitchen. I’m not saying they’re good, but if you want to compare to cable TV, you need to remember the dark times.

      • NutWrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Star Trek TOS episodes (1 hour show) were about 52 minutes long, with 8 minutes for commercials. By the time of TNG, episodes were down to 42 minutes. I regularly see ads every 5-6 minutes on YouTube.

        Businesses never understand that it’s THEIR obnoxious, sh*tty advertising that kills something profitable, and when it finally dies, it’s surprised Pikachu faces all around.

  • RageAgainstTheRich@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    I refuse to use the official youtube app. Its so trash… I use newpipe and its amazing to just have all my favorite videos bookmarked locally in different lists.

    If they take that away from me i will just stop using youtube.

  • Kedly@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Since the initial push, I have not even had to reset my ublock… stop using Chrome

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Somewhere out there a CEO thought this was a good idea. All it seems to be doing is pushing people to other platforms (the younger gen moving over to tiktok and the older gens moving 3rd party or just offline).

    • dinckel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 months ago

      While I agree, the amount of people who’d do this is negligibly small, compared to their total userbase. Obviously a bunch of people use ad blockers, but only a tiny amount of them have modified apps, followed by an even tinier amount of those people with fully custom frontends. For YT it might work out as a net positive, because the annoying blocks and reminders will just pressure people into paying for Premium.

      At the end of the day, I could just stop watching youtube entirely, if this trend continues. I have nothing to gain there

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I guess what there really winning is all those non tech-savvy people who currently have an adblocker installed because their friend helped.

      • Maeve@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yes, been thinking I’ve just been substituting YT for * TV, and while the consumption can still be customized, it’s still a habit that can be kicked. I bet I’ll get more sleep and productivity.

        • Lol autocorrect
  • RonSijm@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    9 months ago

    YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile. In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”

    Yea, noticed that last week. Is already fixed again in latest revanced.

    • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      yup, noticed that revanced wasn’t working a week ago.

      went into revanced manager, patched the recommended version, installed gmscore, done.

      suck it youtube, i’m not paying a subscription to watch low effort vtuber edits.

  • kratoz29@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    8 months ago

    Oh, I definitely have experienced “The following content is not available on this app.” Before, but I thought it was just a thing of my Revanced version outdated because I rarely update it… Which I’m gonna do just now 😁

    I hope this doesn’t bring too many issues to Smart Tube, which is where I do 99% of my YT usage (and I have yet to be bothered with any bug).

    • viking@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      Never had any outage in SmartTube either, unless they pushed a faulty release (I’m on the beta channel), but even then they have reacted super fast with fixes.

      So far I’m using NewPipe x Sponsorblock on my phone - apparently it has been discontinued & archived, but still works just fine as well. Only the comment view is broken since a couple weeks, but I really don’t care about those to begin with.

  • Deeleres@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    8 months ago

    In Germany, there is a law that regulates the amount and intervals of advertising for private television broadcasters: 20% or 1/5 per broadcast day may be used for advertising. Programs that are shorter than 30 minutes may have a break, otherwise there must be 20 minutes between commercial breaks - 30 minutes in the evening. Unfortunately, there are still some loopholes.

    Children’s programs are not allowed to have commercial breaks.

    It’s a shame that this law still doesn’t apply to YouTube.

  • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    8 months ago

    Makes me miss a time where they couldn’t tell if ads were actually watched or not.

    Sooner or later, ad blockers should just simulate the ad being played (in the background) with the real content going in the foreground to act as if the ad was watched.

    Kind of like going to the bathroom during commercials.

    Then again I wish we had a real alternative to YouTube. (Don’t point me to the fediverse video stuff … that’s not what I mean.) There is no real competition for a place to freely upload videos … or on the other side find all that content. No one wants to scale enough to compete. (Very few probably could considering the amount of new content per minute).

    If only there was real competition, then YouTube would have to fight over our attention/usage by lowering ad count.

    No competition means worse for all.

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well, YT is literally getting petabytes uploaded to it. Every single day. Thats 1000 terabytes, and thats 1000000 gigabytes.

      I bet you haven’t even seen a petabyte of storage in one place (assuming you didn’t go to a data center yourself). How is a small company, or even fediverse, gonna handle that? Thats absolutely insane amount of data and, without moderation or curation, it is not feasible.

      It’s a giant waste of space and resources, to be honest. Most videos are seen once, and the rest is mostly spam or bad quality content.

      • Specal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        Actually the cost issues wouldn’t be the storage it’s self. Storage is pretty cheap, it’s content delivery networks. YouTube is supported by being owned and run by one of the worlds larges content delivery networks. There’s virtually no latency, videos play immediately.

        Having millions (potentially billions in YouTube’s case) of people accessing data at once is an immense challenge and YouTube perfected it pretty early on, that’s part of why there’s no competition.

        • derpgon@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Content delivery is not cheap, but not hard to do, either. I’d wager storage would be a bigger problem, because it just keeps rising. Sadly, YouTube is the one with money, and the monetization comes from people.

          • Specal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            I can speak from experience that content delivery is harder than storage. Companies like YouTube tackle the storage issue by having tiered storage levels. Trending content is stored on SSDs, new and often viewed content is stored on harddrives with a caching system similar to optane and archived storage (essentially old videos that very rarely get views) goes on tape storage. It’s really cool, and it allows massive about of storage in a small space, it’s costs alot to implement but because of the tape storage they essentially have “infinite” (it’s not really infinite of course but it’s a problem for next decade not this decade).

            • derpgon@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Fair enough, but that’s YouTube, who can afford all of it. Of course, if you have tons of money, you don’t need to count pennies where counting them would just slow you down.

              But take a competitor - how can a different service be viable if they lack money to have (virtually) infinite storage? Heavy moderation or monetization. Youtube kinda does the second one.

              To reiterate, I am not saying you say things that are not correct.

          • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I remember seeing a startup at one point that wanted to put mini-CDNs in people’s homes. Small black boxes that would automatically be a CDN not just for your home, but the whole area. Of course, sites would have to use their CDN network, etc.

            I actually thought it was a really interesting idea. Almost like federated CDNs.

            Imagine if every Xfinity router has a built-in 16TB CDN: it would be an interesting way to possibly change how bandwidth works and makes it back to the DCs. Most popular stuff would be closer, faster.

            • Specal@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              God could you imagine the security risks though, having a physical risk in a network, that would be fun. Limewire on steroids.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well break it up “lemmy wise” or more? I mean nobody can replace youtube but it would be possible having your own fishing channel for example. If it gets wildly watched you probably have to figure out some sponsorship for sure.

        BTW no I haven’tseen a PB storage, but I did write visualisation and computation software for treating and seing datastructures up to PB size with hdf5.

    • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sooner or later, ad blockers should just simulate the ad being played (in the background) with the real content going in the foreground to act as if the ad was watched.

      I wish adblockers did this, open the ad in a little silenced sandbox window. I don’t see the ad, creator gets their pay

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Even the advertisers don’t lose out because you wouldn’t have paid attention to the ad too. They might even win a little because now one doesn’t have to get annoyed by the ad and deliberately not buy the thing.

        • lost_faith@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          Exactly, I don’t overly mind the “paid advertisements” the creators do, the guys I watch that do this are extremely funny in how they do it so if I don’t manually skip I get a good laugh, like the “Adstronaut”

      • gravitywell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Adnaseum is a fork of unlock that fakes viewing ads. The thing is its banned from chromes app store because google is at its core an advertising company.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I wonder about this. Youtube is made so that videos has to be long (10 minutes at least, or you won’t get exposure, right?) so we get all those dragged out videos with long summaries.

      Also you are supposed to earn money with it, which combined makes videos, IMO, often not very interesting.

      Sure, I get it, everyone can’t make videos all day long for free, but isn’t that something that we shouldn’t maybe want?

      I prefer a genuine hobbyist making one video a year, than a sponsored person pushing one a day.

      Which brings me to hosting and bandwidth needs, youtube needs a lot of that because of its business model, but say Lemmy communities could probably host quality videos without large hassle (especially if small servers wasn’t defederated all the time).

      Thoughts?

      • csm10495@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The problem is the term quality would be used to block out certain creators. The definition would wind up being vague and/or arbitrary.

        What one person thinks is quality may not be quality to someone else. In a way that’s a niceness of YouTube. We can each upload what we think is good… or bad.

        Even then if a video goes big viral (which is arguably something a creator may want), the bandwidth costs could skyrocket.

        Then it’s like: maybe we need CDNs and more storage and boom now it’s even more expensive. I just don’t see fediverse video working great long term without big money to back it.