• YouTube is testing server-side ad injection to counter ad blockers, integrating ads directly into videos to make them indistinguishable from the main content.
  • This new method complicates ad blocking, including tools like SponsorBlock, which now face challenges in accurately identifying and skipping sponsored segments.
  • The feature is currently in testing and not widely rolled out, with YouTube encouraging users to subscribe to YouTube Premium for an ad-free experience.
  • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’ll just write a greasemonkey script that detects unskippable time and mute audio. Let’s play this game google, fuckin I dare ya.

      • GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        At this point you can just replace the video with the same video using a timestamped link from just before the ad started. Under IPv4 they can’t tell if it is the same person/device requesting the same video. So unless they put the ad at exactly the same timestamp (which they won’t) you can just blank out the video when an ad starts and replace the stream with the same video using the timestamp to start the video where you left off.

    • Nora@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’m pretty sure ads will likely be different audio level or light level that would be detectable. If there is no option to detect the ad via API that would be one way to know when the ads begin and end.

      • Stupidmanager@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        The idea here is that ads will be unskippable, aka, you skip ahead 10-20 seconds but can’t. They’re will be controls that appear to catch this. If they incorporate ads and I can just fast forward, then who cares. This is google, they want to watch ads.

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

      Or use it to implement a script that just downloads the video and cuts the ads out entirely for later watching.

      Or, failing any of those, a script that pops up a reminder that YouTube has unskippable ads so you can back out and just do something else with your time.

    • CrayonRosary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      93
      ·
      4 months ago

      Drink the Kool-aid instead and join Premium. It’s great. YouTube is my primary source of video entertainment. No ads on any device and countless thousands of hours of math and science videos, SNL clips, educational videos, game reviews, and on and on.

      For the cost of two beers a month, I get access to the best video library in the world with no ads, plus saved video progress so you can resume videos later, and YouTube Music to boot.

      Why everyone on Lemmy thinks everything in the world should be free when it costs money to run the servers and pay content creators is beyond me. Makes no sense.

      • Leg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You sound like an ad. It triggered my uncanny valley response. Please never do that again.

      • WormFood@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        as an occasional creator of internet videos,I would much rather host my own videos, because bandwidth is actually very cheap. but YouTube has a complete monopoly on internet video, so I have to host my video on their website, subject to their weird and arbitrary conditions, their trigger happy copyright system, and their general terrible treatment of their creators. they pay an absolute pittance for impressions, which is why most professional YouTubers use other revenue streams

        the company, Google, that you are paying, didn’t make the videos, doesn’t fairly compensate the people who did, and they are effectively holding them and the very concept of internet video hostage

        people on Lemmy mostly support a free, non-corpo, decentralised internet instead of the parasites at Google because Lemmy is free and decentralised and non corporate

        get real

      • Martineski@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 months ago

        Will that fix their horrible site and mobile app that constatntly breaks on me? I’m not going to pay a corporation that treats users and creators like shit and can’t even make a good way to interact with the service with all that money. If they prpvided a fantastic service and were pro-consumer and pro-creator then I totally would. But they’re the opposite of that.

      • lando55@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I signed up for a family plan a couple years ago and it’s honestly one of the last subscriptions I would cancel. I can justify it by the literally hundreds of hours of watching ads me and my family would have been subjected to otherwise.

      • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        What you don’t understand is that if YouTube manages to get enough people by the balls with their anti-adblocking efforts, the next step is to start jacking up the subscription price year after year to see how much people are willing to pay.

      • kava@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        I prefer subscription models. That way I’m paying with my money and not my content. Of course with Google you’re doing both… but in principle I support it. I pay for a family plan and have some friends/ family on it.

        It hate ads and to me it’s easily worth the monthly fee. I looked up a YouTube video on a TV that wasn’t signed in and there was like 60 seconds of ads! I’ve had YouTube premium / red for years I didn’t realize it was getting so bad.

        But yeah, I support subscription model. More sustainable and honest way for a website to make a profit. In a subscription you are the buyer and the website is the product. In a free model ad companies are the buyer and you are the product.

        They have more incentive under the subscription model to create a better experience for the user. In a free they have incentive to squeeze user as much as possible. I think it’s one of the main drivers of enshittification

          • kava@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Well couple of things.

            First, I said it gives more incentive. Not explicitly mandates it. So I’m not saying all subscription services are great to the consumer. I’m saying as a whole, it’s probably better than the alternative.

            Second, Netflix is a bit of a unique case I think. They essentially created the streaming industry back during blockbuster days. Nobody thought streaming rights had any value so they licensed them to Netflix for cheap. Netflix blew up because it had access to a very large catalog of media.

            After companies realized they could make more money streaming things themselves, they stopped renewing the licenses to Netflix.

            Netflix was very large because of their access to these licenses. If they lose the license, they over the long term lose their customers. So they took a gamble and invested heavily in self-made media in many different languages. Some were a success, like Stranger Things, but most were flops.

            Essentially they became this large corporate behemoth and they are desperately trying to remain in their top hegemon spot. Once a company reaches that size, they are an entirely different animal. And unfortunately because of the way streaming rights works, you’ll probably only see large corporate streaming sites in the foreseeable future

      • littlecolt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I pay for YouTube. It is without a doubt the best subscription I pay for, that I get major use out of. I know people are hardcore anti-ad and Google is like Ad Satan, but if you can afford it, YouTube is unironically worth it.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        The monthly payment for my family subscription is less than 2 tickets to the movies, not including gas, popcorn, kids, etc.

        Easily the most bang for the buck entertainment we get, we watch hours of YouTube every day. News, tech reviews, travel, kids songs, tutorials…

        I canceled Disney+ and Netflix, but YouTube premium is not going anywhere.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    OK, can I be real about this for a second?

    I’m torn about Youtube ad stuff. Genuinely.

    On the one hand the ads suck, we have a good way to bypass them and I certainly don’t want to watch Youtube videos if the ads are unskippable.

    On the other hand, if I’m being honest I watch more Youtube than Netflix or Amazon Prime and I sure give those guys money for a subscription. If I counted the cost per watched minute, Youtube Premium would make way more sense than a bunch of subs I do pay.

    But I also don’t want to watch a Youtube that is a paid service. That was never the point. The reason I engage with it so much is it’s supposed to be UGC, not TV.

    So yeah, torn. Youtube is very weird and the relationship we all have with it is super dysfunctional, creators and viewers alike. We made a very strange future and now we have to deal with it.

    • untilyouarrived@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      I pay for YouTube Premium. I get a lot of value from it, and streaming video isn’t cheap. I don’t think it’s reasonable for anyone to think they should provide it for free.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeeeah, but my issue with that is they generated the expectation that it’d be free by using their investment money to muscle out smaller competitors. There was a time where Youtube was the biggest of a set of UGC video sites and some of the others were competitive. Now it’s the only real alternative.

        So from that perspective they made their bed, now they sleep in it.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yeeeah, but my issue with that is they generated the expectation that it’d be free by using their investment money to muscle out smaller competitors.

          All of YouTube’s competitors were doing the same thing, use ads to subsidize free video hosting. It just happened to be that YouTube was the survivor. If there was competition, it would likely have the same business model that YouTube has. Spotify may be building a YouTube competitor based on the same model.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep, that’s also fair. Google is the leftovers from the “let them fight” approach to venture capital. Now we have a monopoly on many areas and nobody’s left to do anything when Godzilla comes to visit.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I don’t give a shit if it’s reasonable anymore.

        Google has done enough terrible things over the years, ruined enough services, some of them paid services, continually harmed content creators with their trash algorithm, refused to defend them from bogus copyright strikes, refused to provide meaningful support to anybody but advertisers, all the while hosting hate on their platform, for profit. So I don’t give a damn what’s fair to them.

        They won’t get a penny from me ever again. I’ll continue to find every way of accessing any content on that platform that I choose, without ads, and without paying them, and it has absolutely nothing to do with ethics or reason. It is entirely, 100%, because fuck Google.

        Fuck their ad network, fuck manifest 3, fuck their “integrity” checking, fuck all of this. I’d rather see it all burn to the ground than help them turn the internet into cable tv.

        • skulblaka@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          And if this attitude spreads, which arguably it should, the service will simply be shut down. Unfortunately I think this may end up being a great loss for humanity as a whole if that happens. Elsewhere in this thread I compared it to the Library of Alexandria for its sheer content of 20-odd years worth of nearly all of humanity’s culture, news, and technical information.

          I don’t know what to do with this. The dragon must be slain but the hoard must be preserved, and I’m not sure how we accomplish that. The contents of YouTube should be backed up and made available to a public data store outside of Google’s grasp, ideally as a public utility probably maintained by tax money, and youtube can remain as a front-end to that service. But actually getting that done in the modern day seems… we’ll say, slim. For one thing the total youtube data package is about a fucktillion gigabytes and the only people able to host it are the ones who already have it. For another, Google will argue in court that videos uploaded to their service are their property, and they’ll win that argument.

          So we can start again anew, but we must mourn what we lose, because it may be significant. Like it or not, YouTube is a significant percentage of the recorded data output of the human race. Just pray, once we kill the beast, that you never have to replace any parts on a car model year 2004-2018 - because you won’t find good repair manuals anywhere and all the good tutorials are buried in the belly of YouTube.

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

        Oh sure servers do cost money but Google wants to have their cake and eat it to with the creators that make people actually want to use the site despite all their bullshit. Changing standards of what is and isn’t not acceptable coming from the top has made every creator dance and squirm to escape the very real eventuality of having weeks of work mean nothing. Google doesn’t respect the people making the product they are selling so I refuse to respect the bill they try to send me

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      The problem is that user generated content still takes time. Which means money. Also, people don’t want vlogs with a drywall background anymore and the number of creators who can get away with simple prop free skits are double digit, at best. So making the videos also cost money.

      People make up this fantaasy land where art should be done with no compensation to be pure. Which ignores that the vast majority of art in human history was either made by the independently wealthy or as a “patron” system where… an independently wealthy person paid an artist to make them look good.

      And that even extends to the modern day. People get angry about “nepo babies” but… it takes a lot of time and money to refine your music to a meaningful degree. The garage bands that get discovered playing at a local bar are VERY much the exception and almost everyone universally considers their best albums to be the first couple after they got signed by a label and could drill down and refine it.

      Youtube and the like are basically the first time that “the everyperson” could make art for a living. Unfortunately… that means they need to get paid. Ads are of very questionable use. Youtube Premium is almost universally praised by any creator who is willing to talk about it. But we need some way of paying those mid tier creators who are popular enough to do it for a living but not popular enough to get 120 bucks a year from their fans to upload MAYBE one video (looking at you Michael Reeves).

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The problem is that user generated content still takes time. Which means money. Also, people don’t want vlogs with a drywall background anymore and the number of creators who can get away with simple prop free skits are double digit, at best. So making the videos also cost money.

        That’s why I don’t use Sponsorblock: it hurts the wrong people.

        But I’ll still block the ads because to hell with Google and their monopoly. I’m only interested in supporting the artists directly, Google can get fucked.

    • Jordan117@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I do try to block ads, but tbh it’s impossible to be mad at Google for pushing them. YouTube is a modern miracle of engineering – no other platform on the planet hosts the scale of video it does, indefinitely, with instant access, for free. It is more than fair for them to recoup the massive cost. Personally, if they had a cheaper version of Premium without the music features, I’d pay for it in a heartbeat.

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

        YouTube is a modern miracle of engineering – no other platform on the planet hosts the scale of video it does, indefinitely, with instant access, for free

        Because Google chokes the market. There could be plenty of other competitors if Google charged for it like other companies would. Google subsidized YouTube with the rest of their company’s profits, not to provide us a free platform because they’re so nice, but to prevent competition. As long as YouTube was free, no other companies would be able to keep up with the costs, therefore no one else would enter the market.

        If this shit is so expensive, and they want money, they can gate the content like every other streaming service, and then deal with the competition that would swell up.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          If google “charged for it like other companies would” then youtube would not exist. The ONLY companies that can handle that volume of data are Google, Amazon, and Microsoft: The three big cloud service providers. And Microsoft noped the fuck out and Amazon have some strong purges on most streams.

          And… there were other sites that tried to compete with youtube. Those of us who are old enough will remember subscribing to Rooster Teeth or Giant Bomb but watching the videos on youtube because “the site player is shit”. Let alone all the general purpose video sites that either became dirtier than a truck stop lizard who barebacks constantly or became liveleak and was all about Faces of Death and revenge porn… and then went out of business.

          Videos is INCREDIBLY expensive. That is why the current rise of sites like Nebula and Gun Jesus’s site and Corridor Crew’s site all paywall watching anything. Because free video would cost way too much.

          If this shit is so expensive, and they want money, they can gate the content like every other streaming service, and then deal with the competition that would swell up.

          So… you actively dislike a model where you can choose to watch videos in exchange for watching an ad and instead insist upon paying to watch anything. AND still don’t want to pay to watch anything because Youtube Premium lets you do that anyway.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            The Giant Bomb site player specifically was way better than the contemporary Youtube player for a good long while. They were also better at prioritizing bitrate over resolution, since they weren’t obsessed with pretending they had a pixel count advantage over competitors while compressing contents down to mush. If anything it’s ironic that Youtube will now try to sell you bitrate as part of their subscription without cranking up the resolution, presumably because their creators no longer even try to upload 4K anymore.

            Sorry, now I’m bringing up legacy gripes from a different decade. Carry on.

    • PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I feel really bad for smaller creators because they spend so much of their time on the algorithm treadmill just trying to get more views. There’s a channel size threshold where you really have to work more than you get out and I see a lot of people getting burned out trying to make a living from yt.

      • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Then clearly it’s not a smart choice to make videos and have them uploaded to a scummy place like YouTube.

        Their issues are not my problem. I have my own stresses at work, you don’t see me bitching about it to strangers online.

        Don’t like your job or the terms your forced to adhere too, quit.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          So… because you had a bad they should not even attempt to pursue their dreams and make art/“art”?

          Also… I really hope your job is a perfect wonderland with no ethical or moral complications. Otherwise, it is your fault for working there instead of somewhere else, obviously.

          We live in a late stage capitalistic hellscape and still snipe each other constantly. Everybody would rather fuck over everyone else than show any degree of solidarity.

          • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Not once did I say they shouldn’t persue anything…if I’m presented with a contract from work which I don’t agree with,I’m looking for a new job…

            Also… I really hope your job is a perfect wonderland with no ethical or moral complications. Otherwise, it is your fault for working there instead of somewhere else, obviously.

            It would be my fault for staying somewhere that is objectively bad for me…yes…it’s not your problem, it’s mine…

            Why is it the customers responsibility to fix the companies problem for the employees…explain.

    • GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I think Google created a model that is unsustainable from the get go, because they have infinite money glitches and used this to monopolize the market and lure in creators.

      It could be sustainable for non-premium users if the amount of ads was similar to what it was, idk, 10 years ago, 14 years ago. However back then they were not making nearly enough to cover their costs and pay creators handsomely.

      I like to support creators but I also liked youtube better when it was mostly common people doing their thing however the fuck they wanted, instead of this hyper-profissionalized tv-wannabe corporate channels that grow to be mammoths.

      Problem is, we accepted the weird assumption that successful content creators on the internet are entitled to be millionaires, or to make a lot more money per month than say, a successful person in a common profession. If content creators got into youtube with the mindset that at best they’d live a life that is middle class instead of trying to become rich, then youtube would need a lot less money than it needs today, and content would go back to being more relaxed not mega professional and extremely polished videos from channels that employ dozens of people.

      But alas, I guess successful video creators on youtube are supposed to be rich and deserve to earn more money than a doctor, and youtube is supposed to be a viable source of income for mega corporations that used to be mainly TV and other traditional media but then freaked out about losing people to the internet.

      That’s what I thought at first but who am I kidding, if content creators got paid less youtube would still be very popular and google would still do whatever the fuck they want and shove more ads in it anyways. And also, paying top creators so much money is another way to prevent competition, creators won’t choose another platform if they can’t match the pay.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s worth paying for but not if it includes DRM, proprietary software and preferably not giving money to Don’t Be Evil company.

  • Praise Idleness@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I wouldn’t mind sitting through an ad or possibly another one mid-video.

    Small issue with that for me is that their ads are privacy nightmare but what isn’t these days…

    Biggest issue is that their ads are ridiculously annoying and so inappropriate. They just don’t even try. They are sexist, fraudulent, and often times plain illegal.

    So unless they fix these issues, I won’t watch them without ads blocked.

    • blattrules@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree and I also wouldn’t mind so much if the ads were in proportion to the length of the video and at natural breaks. I don’t want to watch a 30 second ad to see a 15 second video.

    • cybersandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      As much as I hate that prime added ads to a paid service (absolute horse shit), the way they’ve implemented it so far is one of the better methods. They’ll do a single ad at the beginning that’s like “this show is brought to you uninterrupted by Samsung”. Then no more ads until the next episode.

      YouTube is trash with it.

  • Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    4 months ago

    And I’m testing no longer using YouTube.

    Cable was gone years ago, followed by all streaming. Soon all I’ll have left are games and hobbies.

  • smnwcj@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    With the state of AI and computer vision, and legal requirements to disclose ads, i wonder if a ytdl + editing script will he the nicest way to watch at some point

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I have a ytdl script download my “subscriptions” automatically to my jellyfin media server and an invidious server for everything else.

      Its already is a much nicer way to watch content right now.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yep, can I play it at 2x speed or skip ahead? If not, then it’s the ad. At the very least blank the video and mute the sound. I’ll enjoy a moment to breath and consider if there’s something better I should be doing.

      • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Forced quite breaks of nothing instead of adpocalyps Is such an unironic wholesome idea. Our brains really need that more.

  • 3volver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    This wouldn’t be a problem IF content creators were paid a fair share. I wouldn’t actually mind ads nearly as much knowing that the channels I enjoy watching were getting paid reasonably for every ad that I watched. Google has the technology to make it possible.

    • hightrix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ll just use I and stop using YouTube. I won’t purposefully poison my mind with ads.

      • Bogasse@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        You could still go for a premium subscription, but I don’t trust Google with my money either.

        I hope this would make some quality content creators to move to another platform, but I don’t really believe in this.

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

          My concern is the inevitable day premium YouTube has ads too. Seems like ‘ad free’ is almost always a temporary pit stop for media platforms on the road to recreating cable.

  • bean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Why should I pay or watch ads to listen to someone tell me I need to • like and subscribe • who’s sponsoring them • a life story

    … before getting to the small percentage of possible useful information therein?

    I’ve taken to using Ai to summarize video content just to be able to review if the video even contains an answer or information which is relevant.

    I know I’m just one use case, that I don’t watch a ton of other content. It’s usually how to do something or fix something or configuration of something. I’ve sat through countless ads and videos which just wasted my time and left me frustrated trying to find information.

    Panning for gold through endless kaka.

    • fin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I’ve taken to using Ai to summarize video content just to be able to review if the video even contains an answer or information which is relevant.

      That sounds interesting. Could you tell me how? Using OpenAI api to summarize transcripts or something?

      • bean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I’ll probably get hammered for this, but then again, you’ll have to pay for API access anyway. I’ve been testing out notegpt.io (not affiliated). Exactly because of my reasons listed, and because I often have to research or do trainings, I needed ways to save time and ‘sift’ through lots of information. I used to just play videos in say 1.5 speed, but even then it’s sometimes hard to stay focused or you might miss something and have to stop and go back. Sometimes language is a barrier too. Not to mention the ads. So for my own sanity, I’ve been testing that out. It’s been pretty damn good actually. I can get by on the lowest tier and you can try it free too. Again it’s not for everyone, but I’d rather give them money than Google for their Anti-customer behavior.

    • GreatDong3000@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Some people said that skipping is blocked during the ad. But if that is the case I am sure either the timestamp is predictable or somewhere on the client side you could find the information about the timestamp.

      • PixelAlchemist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Google’s own Shaka sdk (video playback with ads) gives ad markers in the initial video manifest so that they can be marked on the timeline, so hopefully it’ll be trivial. Usually (but not always) with SSAI, the ads are spliced into the stream just before being sent to the client. That way if a user has just recently watched an ad pod, the server can choose to ignore that marker for a better UX in hopes that they don’t bounce if ads are too frequent.

      • WolfdadCigarette@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s neat, it’d be identifiable in a fashion similar to missile logic. You know where ads are based on where they aren’t. Actually skipping it would be difficult but muting and doing something else for a predetermined period has been a workaround since radio.

      • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I doubt it… They couldn’t even manage to block FFWD on their own website for the longest time. I switched to using alternative front ends long ago, but back when I just used YT directly from my phone’s browser, spam tapping +5s a few times would bypass the ad.