Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?(drhyperion451.github.io)
drhyperion451.github.io
Does uBlock Origin bypass the latest YouTube anti-adblock script?
https://drhyperion451.github.io/does-uBO-bypass-yt/
485 comments
The number has climbed by almost 100 in the past couple of minutes. Interesting to see if the HN effect temporarily ruins your rule of thumb...
We are going to break ublock origin if that continues
If what continues? People following a link from HN to Reddit? People updating uBlock when the reddit counter is >1000? I'm confused.
I’m pretty sure he’s joking.
This is clever and I'm definitely using it.
Website idea: a downdetector-like site that uses reddit's "here now" numbers to give insight into whether something is going on with a certain thing.
edit: Has anyone else not really been affected by the new youtube adblock policy at all? I think I have seen the warning a single time, and I use youtube all the time. I only use ublock origin and privacy badger... on chrome. Maybe that's it.
Website idea: a downdetector-like site that uses reddit's "here now" numbers to give insight into whether something is going on with a certain thing.
edit: Has anyone else not really been affected by the new youtube adblock policy at all? I think I have seen the warning a single time, and I use youtube all the time. I only use ublock origin and privacy badger... on chrome. Maybe that's it.
> Has anyone else not really been affected by the new youtube adblock policy at all?
The megathread addresses this:
> I've never seen this message. Is this because of my browser being X or Y? No, YouTube didn't roll this out to everybody yet.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/184fivk/youtu...
The megathread addresses this:
> I've never seen this message. Is this because of my browser being X or Y? No, YouTube didn't roll this out to everybody yet.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/184fivk/youtu...
It was rolled out to me. I saw several warnings that my ad blocker wasn't allowed, and on one day they blocked me from watching videos, except that they didn't block me from watching videos in Incognito Mode.
On all other days, I was free to watch whatever I wanted while logged in. They might complain at me about ad blocking, or not.
On all days, youtube-dl worked fine. (This matters because, contemporaneously with the anti-ad-blocking campaign, YouTube started sometimes reducing my video frame rate to 0 fps. Audio never suffered at all.)
It's not a strict regime.
On all other days, I was free to watch whatever I wanted while logged in. They might complain at me about ad blocking, or not.
On all days, youtube-dl worked fine. (This matters because, contemporaneously with the anti-ad-blocking campaign, YouTube started sometimes reducing my video frame rate to 0 fps. Audio never suffered at all.)
It's not a strict regime.
It is not, but it did prompt a discussion with my buddies. What do we do when/if it becomes strict? Solutions are kinda there depending on what you are willing to put up with. FWIW, I started archiving stuff with ydl.
I have it rolled out to one of my two computers. Same IP, same google account (logged in). So it seems very random.
My wife uses YouTube a lot more than I do. I watch occasional tech related videos or stuff that's been sent to me. She uses it for audiobooks, music, some podcasts. She subscribes to a bunch of channels. It's her account that's logged in on the TV. I've never seen a message warning about adblocker use on my account, whereas her account got temporarily disabled. She ended up paying for premium.
> Has anyone else not really been affected by the new youtube adblock policy at all?
not really. firefox + privacy badger + ubo. once a week or so i do get blocked but then i clear cookies, restart firefox and relogin and then it works.
not really. firefox + privacy badger + ubo. once a week or so i do get blocked but then i clear cookies, restart firefox and relogin and then it works.
I bet it's been used for stock/crypto trading for years already.
Is there some place with a technical writeup of what YT are doing to frustrate circumvention so effectively?
Effectively? I've been using uBlock Origin the whole time. Whatever YouTube is doing, it cannot be accurately described as "effective".
I didn't even notice that my YouTube Premium Lite subscription had been terminated for about a month, YT decided to not offer that type of subscription anymore and I'm not willing to pay more for YT Premium, uBlock Origin is working flawlessly.
I think they’re still doing split testing.
They're not doing anything effective. What does split testing have to do with it?
You might want to see my other comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38542185
You might want to see my other comment, here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38542185
“Can be bypassed” does not necessarily mean ineffective, when the goal is to change behavior.
Do people typically respond to the YouTube anti-blocking threat prompt by disabling their ad blocker entirely, or by enhancing their ad blocking?
Do people typically respond to the YouTube anti-blocking threat prompt by disabling their ad blocker entirely, or by enhancing their ad blocking?
[deleted]
I think they are just updating their measures frequently, so not really anything technical. In other words: Youtube is continuously spending a lot of money to put out new patches block the latest circumventions.
Not sure it’s a lot of money. Probably just an algorithm to generate variations of the anti Adblock code. At most, polymorphic code inspired by malware.
I actually wonder what is the balance between maybe a small team of software engineers finding way to block adblock vs generate revenue for periods when they are successful.
In the end it really is question that when they manage to block adblock do they make more money than they spend in effort.
In the end it really is question that when they manage to block adblock do they make more money than they spend in effort.
haha, it worked! The only problem is the delay between the moment uBO starts working and the people realize
What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning. If we weren't youtube/Google wouldn't be making such a fuss. So keep it up.
I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
I can also heartily recommend the 'unhook' browser extension, it takes care of all of those upsells and feeds.
What does winning mean in this context?
If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made? Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads?
Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay. They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made? Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads?
Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay. They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
First they destroyed the old internet by “forgetting” sites from search and created “platforms”.
Then they abused adnetworks to take the biggest share and control over what users can do or will likely do with their user agents.
Then they degraded every site and product searchability into ads-favored keyword matching.
Then, when people started using their well-setup cardboard box traps to their taste, they demanded to either pay for that or to forcefully watch ads.
I’m not gonna play a reasonable guy here, because it’s not a logical issue. I never wanted or expected to live in an internet like that. Google can go cry in a corner and look miserable.
And everyone should install ublock origin. Think of it as Python 3 or ESM or Democracy. It’s much better, you all just have to figure out new life with it.
Then they abused adnetworks to take the biggest share and control over what users can do or will likely do with their user agents.
Then they degraded every site and product searchability into ads-favored keyword matching.
Then, when people started using their well-setup cardboard box traps to their taste, they demanded to either pay for that or to forcefully watch ads.
I’m not gonna play a reasonable guy here, because it’s not a logical issue. I never wanted or expected to live in an internet like that. Google can go cry in a corner and look miserable.
And everyone should install ublock origin. Think of it as Python 3 or ESM or Democracy. It’s much better, you all just have to figure out new life with it.
I pay for YouTube to support the platform and creators. If you don't pay for a service, you aren't the customer you are the product. Google may need to shut down the free viewership of most YouTube videos unless the creator pays for them to be hosted or the viewers sign up for a subscription. The ad model is clearly failing.
You give money and your personal information to an advertising company. The advertising company then does god knows what with your personal information and gives some of that money to some of the 'creators' that you watch, in a way that isn't transparent to you. Who is getting how much money? Do the 'creators' you value get most of that money, or does it go to some clickbait crap you click on in a moment of weakness? You don't know.
What you should do: starve the advertising company (you shouldn't be donating money to support "the platform" which is a trillion dollar for-profit corporation!) and donate directly to the people who ask for it and deserve it.
What you should do: starve the advertising company (you shouldn't be donating money to support "the platform" which is a trillion dollar for-profit corporation!) and donate directly to the people who ask for it and deserve it.
Just because you are paying for a service doesn't mean that companies won't double dip or triple dip by either showing you ads or selling your data.
Yeah, movie theaters figured that out 30 years or so ago when they realized besides trailers (which okay, are ads of a sort), they could subject viewers who paid for a ticket to 20 minutes of ads for things like M&Ms and Coke before even the trailers begin. It's gotten to the point that you might as well show up 30 minutes after a movie is scheduled to begin as the movie itself won't have started yet.
Then there is product placement like in ET or back to the future!
Who didn't want to eat Reese's pieces, drink a Pepsi free or tab, or buy a Toyota or pair of Nikes.
Who didn't want to eat Reese's pieces, drink a Pepsi free or tab, or buy a Toyota or pair of Nikes.
True, but that has a long history. It used to be even more blatant in fact, with characters commenting on how smooth the taste of Lucky Strike cigarettes were in the 1950s.
I both pay for YouTube Premium (let's call it what it is: a hope that content creators get paid) and also use uBlock Origin religiously. Nothing's stopping people from doing both.
But Youtube DOESN'T support creators unless you are one of the mega-influencers targeting 12 year olds with daily "Wowie zowie" uploads. Ask every medium sized channel how helpful youtube is. Ask any channel with a million subscribers if the changes youtube makes improves their lives or business. Multiple of these groups of channels have banded together to make youtube alternatives explicitly to escape the damn algorithm treadmill.
Youtube doesn't support creators, it milks them dry for content.
Youtube doesn't support creators, it milks them dry for content.
> I pay for YouTube to support the platform and creators.
Paying Google to support creators pushes them to play to The Algorithm(tm) - which means they will adapt the presentation of their content to maximise profitability. And thereby stop making the content you're enjoying now.
As such, I think paying Google to support creators is one of the worst ways to support them. Buy their merch, support them directly on Patreon (or similar), or support a site where they ostensibly have more control (eg, Nebula). Don't coax them into a style of creating dictated by Google's algorithms.
Paying Google to support creators pushes them to play to The Algorithm(tm) - which means they will adapt the presentation of their content to maximise profitability. And thereby stop making the content you're enjoying now.
As such, I think paying Google to support creators is one of the worst ways to support them. Buy their merch, support them directly on Patreon (or similar), or support a site where they ostensibly have more control (eg, Nebula). Don't coax them into a style of creating dictated by Google's algorithms.
Let's get on with it then
And yet still they're the most popular sites, why hasn't everyone moved to an objectively better solution?
Youtube is a great website with Ublock (or premium, I assume). It's borderline unusable without, which is why people are so reluctant to shell out for premium - the ads feel less like a reasonable attempt to monetize, and more like an attempt to push people to premium.
Inertia, convenience.
Network effects.
Network effects are good for the creators who make it big.
Is there a way to build a recommendation engine with a distributed system? Or a search engine?
Is there a way to build a recommendation engine with a distributed system? Or a search engine?
> you all just have to figure out new life with it.
then they'll put the whole site behind a paywall, which could have mixed results. Everyone is focusing on paying the creators, but advertisers are also paying for moderation. voat showed us what an unmoderated reddit is like, and bitchute shows us what unmoderated youtube is like: trying to find DIY birdfeeder videos against the tide of holocaust denial and Podcast #598 of "How the Lizard Illuminati are vaxxing us with every toxic metal on the periodic table but Big Pharma Deep State maintains the elaborate coverup"
then they'll put the whole site behind a paywall, which could have mixed results. Everyone is focusing on paying the creators, but advertisers are also paying for moderation. voat showed us what an unmoderated reddit is like, and bitchute shows us what unmoderated youtube is like: trying to find DIY birdfeeder videos against the tide of holocaust denial and Podcast #598 of "How the Lizard Illuminati are vaxxing us with every toxic metal on the periodic table but Big Pharma Deep State maintains the elaborate coverup"
> If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made?
I'd argue that _content_ is a fairly gross word that we've all come to use because we're in the industry -- "I need some _content_ around my ads so that we get some impressions". There are plenty of other words that are less marketing associated and more clearly connotative with creatively produced material - article, report, essay, story, paper, proposal, manifesto, gallery, video, photographs, exhibit, website, blog post - even material. _Content_ is efficiently produced filler. As such, yes, in the extreme less _content_ gets made, and in the absence of _content_ there is organically more of the latter category.
You can still make money on the internet without ads. Ads have in recent history been an easier, higher margin route. If the entire online ad industry fumbles, will we be substantially worse off? I don't think so: the number and size of websites would for sure shrink, but those left would have a much higher signal to noise.
I'd argue that _content_ is a fairly gross word that we've all come to use because we're in the industry -- "I need some _content_ around my ads so that we get some impressions". There are plenty of other words that are less marketing associated and more clearly connotative with creatively produced material - article, report, essay, story, paper, proposal, manifesto, gallery, video, photographs, exhibit, website, blog post - even material. _Content_ is efficiently produced filler. As such, yes, in the extreme less _content_ gets made, and in the absence of _content_ there is organically more of the latter category.
You can still make money on the internet without ads. Ads have in recent history been an easier, higher margin route. If the entire online ad industry fumbles, will we be substantially worse off? I don't think so: the number and size of websites would for sure shrink, but those left would have a much higher signal to noise.
Video as a format seems drastically overused to me. When I go to the internet to find some information, I either get ai generated essays of great length and no substance, or a link to YouTube. I'm not wasting my time watching a video even if it is sped up, just to learn something that could have been cleanly represented as a short document. If more people start using documents instead of videos where they stare at you and speak, I am in favor of this series of events.
Agreed, nothing more annoying than a video where a 10 line web page would suffice. And google - coincidentally, of course - ranks that video much higher than the 10 line webpage.
I use ddg and it still manages to be videos, and ddg seems to have a problem filtering ai spam pages. Is there a ubo list for that?
> You can still make money on the internet without ads.
Now that in and of itself is a fascinating statement that I kind of agree with? What kind of things are you thinking? The only thing I can really think of is trying to get people to pay for physical objects. Or, perhaps, providing a service that can't be copied (i.e. Video tutoring)
Ads? There are ad-blockers. Subscriptions? People will just use archive so that they don't have to pay you. Donations like Pateron? Maybe viable? I don't know exactly how the business models there work.
Now that in and of itself is a fascinating statement that I kind of agree with? What kind of things are you thinking? The only thing I can really think of is trying to get people to pay for physical objects. Or, perhaps, providing a service that can't be copied (i.e. Video tutoring)
Ads? There are ad-blockers. Subscriptions? People will just use archive so that they don't have to pay you. Donations like Pateron? Maybe viable? I don't know exactly how the business models there work.
So you'd be fine with paying for a subscription?
No, but I also don't expect Google to change, I want their business model to become untenable so better alternatives can get a larger market share. If content creators don't think they get anything out of enabling advertising on YouTube, then they'll stop or move to other platforms which are not based on providing algorithmically generated feeds with interspersed ads based on user profiles. I hate advertising; I think it results in perverse incentives which promotes short-form generic low-effort entertainment. I therefore want to actively steal compute resources from companies whose business model is based on online advertising without giving them ad impressions and pay content creators that I like via other means such as Patreon.
I also just think 99% of advertising is bad taste which makes me mentally exhausted and puts me in a bad mood, so I just want it out of my sight.
Yes, I could pay for YouTube Premium, but that would go against my own interests since I would be financially supporting a platform with perverse incentives for content creators.
I also just think 99% of advertising is bad taste which makes me mentally exhausted and puts me in a bad mood, so I just want it out of my sight.
Yes, I could pay for YouTube Premium, but that would go against my own interests since I would be financially supporting a platform with perverse incentives for content creators.
> If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made?
I can't speak for anybody else but my content will still get made.
> Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads?
Maybe, maybe not, whose to say what Google will do. Maybe they will value the influence or the goodwill more than the lack of income. Maybe some of the content will be free and other bits will be walled off (effectively this is already the case with youtube music). Maybe there will be less MFY content and that's perfectly ok with me, 99.99% of it is crap anyway. Youtuber isn't a profession I recognize.
> Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay.
And that's ok.
> They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
Yes, or you pay and you still get ads...
I can't speak for anybody else but my content will still get made.
> Do you think Google is going to go to a model where things are freely accessible without ads?
Maybe, maybe not, whose to say what Google will do. Maybe they will value the influence or the goodwill more than the lack of income. Maybe some of the content will be free and other bits will be walled off (effectively this is already the case with youtube music). Maybe there will be less MFY content and that's perfectly ok with me, 99.99% of it is crap anyway. Youtuber isn't a profession I recognize.
> Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay.
And that's ok.
> They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
Yes, or you pay and you still get ads...
> I can't speak for anybody else but my content will still get made.
How will your content get served? If you say you'll just pay to serve it, I think that's a fine answer.
How will your content get served? If you say you'll just pay to serve it, I think that's a fine answer.
Unless you're a VERY large and successful YT channel, you aren't making bank on YT itself, it's merch and sponsorships, Patreon and so on that make the money. Monetized Twitch-like feeds are another winner, and again not dependent on YT monetization.
That does not answer the question. There is floatplane and Nebula, but beyond those where will be the content be hosted and will those revenue stream actually cover those hosting/development costs and running the site?
And on other hand if users are paying you something, would they not expect not to have to watch through mediocre sponsorships?
And on other hand if users are paying you something, would they not expect not to have to watch through mediocre sponsorships?
Aren't these all VERY tightly integrated? They can sell merch and sponsorships _because_ of YouTube in the first place?
The point is that many successful YouTubers wouldn't be broke if they stopped making ad revenue from YouTube, because they make most of their money elsewhere anyways.
Which means they would continue making content
Which means they would continue making content
The 10 views my videos get I can afford. Just like I can afford my web hosting.
YouTube is incredibly expensive to run which explains why there's such little competition.
Think about it, anyone can host gigs of videos perpetually indexed for free. What percentage of videos have fewer than 100 views?
Google has killed off profitable projects. If you think they'll dump tens of billions every year hosting videos that no one watches, you're kidding yourself.
And what we noticed with paying is that people are very unwilling to pay even a small amount for a service. For instance FB makes around over $50 per user in North America. What percentage of users do you think would pay $50 a year to use Facebook?
Think about it, anyone can host gigs of videos perpetually indexed for free. What percentage of videos have fewer than 100 views?
Google has killed off profitable projects. If you think they'll dump tens of billions every year hosting videos that no one watches, you're kidding yourself.
And what we noticed with paying is that people are very unwilling to pay even a small amount for a service. For instance FB makes around over $50 per user in North America. What percentage of users do you think would pay $50 a year to use Facebook?
I think I have a pretty good idea of what it costs to run a video site. Check my bio if you think you have something to explain to me on that front.
Great so you know how expensive running a video hosting site is.
So explain to me why Google will continue footing the bill when more and more people prevent them to run ads on the site.
So explain to me why Google will continue footing the bill when more and more people prevent them to run ads on the site.
I think you missed the point. Google bought youtube because for them bandwidth and storage are cheap (it's CPU that is expensive).
Back in the 90's when bandwidth was expensive we managed to run a free video site without advertising. Since then bandwidth has become orders of magnitude cheaper, and G has economies of scale that no other operator can get close to, they quite literally own the fiber, the endpoints and are present in just about every meet-me room all over the world. Storage costs have dropped even further. So what you think costs Google a couple of bucks to provide per user probably costs them fractions of a cent. And if they dropped the garbage their costs would be even lower.
Back in the 90's when bandwidth was expensive we managed to run a free video site without advertising. Since then bandwidth has become orders of magnitude cheaper, and G has economies of scale that no other operator can get close to, they quite literally own the fiber, the endpoints and are present in just about every meet-me room all over the world. Storage costs have dropped even further. So what you think costs Google a couple of bucks to provide per user probably costs them fractions of a cent. And if they dropped the garbage their costs would be even lower.
What was the bandwidth of the stream you were working with back in the 90s? Google targets about 8-10mb/s now for 1080p, right?
Considerably less than that. So much so that our 1 Gbps uplink was enough for a few thousand streams. But so much more expensive and with such lousy compression ratio that you could to much better today for less. Apples to apples.
> tens of billions every year hosting videos
That seems way too high. There's something like half a trillion hours watched per year. Does it really cost almost $0.10 for an hour of video?
That seems way too high. There's something like half a trillion hours watched per year. Does it really cost almost $0.10 for an hour of video?
Youtube is hilarious, on the one hand they keep forcing autoplayed content on you and then they match that with a popup that inquires if you are still watching the video.
> YouTube is incredibly expensive to run which explains why there's such little competition.
So? That's their problem.
> Google has killed off profitable projects. If you think they'll dump tens of billions every year hosting videos that no one watches, you're kidding yourself.
Can't wait for YouTube to die. Hopefully the replacement will be less centralized and not beholden to a single american company.
> And what we noticed with paying is that people are very unwilling to pay even a small amount for a service.
Most "services" are not worth the effort needed to pay them, the amount doesn't even come into it. This is also a self-created issue. Google et al have trained people to not pay by dumping money into these "free" services to kill the competition. Now they are upset that people don't want to pay them? I can't find a violin tiny enough to express my compassion for them.
> For instance FB makes around over $50 per user in North America. What percentage of users do you think would pay $50 a year to use Facebook?
So? They make $0 off of me. I don't care how much they can or cannot make with ads, that doesn't make ads acceptable.
So? That's their problem.
> Google has killed off profitable projects. If you think they'll dump tens of billions every year hosting videos that no one watches, you're kidding yourself.
Can't wait for YouTube to die. Hopefully the replacement will be less centralized and not beholden to a single american company.
> And what we noticed with paying is that people are very unwilling to pay even a small amount for a service.
Most "services" are not worth the effort needed to pay them, the amount doesn't even come into it. This is also a self-created issue. Google et al have trained people to not pay by dumping money into these "free" services to kill the competition. Now they are upset that people don't want to pay them? I can't find a violin tiny enough to express my compassion for them.
> For instance FB makes around over $50 per user in North America. What percentage of users do you think would pay $50 a year to use Facebook?
So? They make $0 off of me. I don't care how much they can or cannot make with ads, that doesn't make ads acceptable.
I have a bit of a different take on this.
If we win the war against Ads lots of content won’t get made. But, the content that thrives in an Ad driven world is mostly toxic rage bait. I would argue that losing this content and instead only being left with content that people will actually pay for is a big net win for humanity.
Likely we will never see a world without Ads but I can dream.
If we win the war against Ads lots of content won’t get made. But, the content that thrives in an Ad driven world is mostly toxic rage bait. I would argue that losing this content and instead only being left with content that people will actually pay for is a big net win for humanity.
Likely we will never see a world without Ads but I can dream.
There’s no winning a war against ads. There are too many people who can’t or won’t pay for services directly, and there are too many people looking to promote products or viewpoints who’ll keep offering money to anyone with an audience.
What I’d like would be focusing on the downsides: ad networks should have legal restrictions on how they collect and share data, liability for any malware they distribute, and every ad should include the legal identity of the person who paid for them (which the network is required to certify). When sites see ads as free money, they plaster them everywhere. When they have to think about the negative externalities, that becomes a more nuanced decision than “would we like more money?”
What I’d like would be focusing on the downsides: ad networks should have legal restrictions on how they collect and share data, liability for any malware they distribute, and every ad should include the legal identity of the person who paid for them (which the network is required to certify). When sites see ads as free money, they plaster them everywhere. When they have to think about the negative externalities, that becomes a more nuanced decision than “would we like more money?”
We have legal restrictions now.
Companies just figured out that they would show a form with buttons: "Accept All", "Accept essential". And said tracking cookies are now "essential". I don't believe "Accept essential" would not share your data - so, just using as privacy oriented browser as possible is the only solution.
Youtube is full of clickbait, get rich quick and unhealthy influencers (how to work 80 hours a week and buy my book btw). Same with fb/ig.
Maybe we have just too much content now.
Youtube is full of clickbait, get rich quick and unhealthy influencers (how to work 80 hours a week and buy my book btw). Same with fb/ig.
Maybe we have just too much content now.
There's no winning a war against dust. But people still spend a lot of time cleaning.
The fight may not be winnable, but if you give up on the pushing back, things will get worse much faster.
The fight may not be winnable, but if you give up on the pushing back, things will get worse much faster.
That’s kind of what I’m saying: we don’t keep our houses at semiconductor fab-levels of clean because it’s not worth the extra effort. I think the same is true of ads for most people: minimize the security risk, set some privacy rules, and don’t make them too obtrusive, and most people are fine with it.
Oh yeah I agree. I was using “If we win the war on Ads” much like “If we achieve world peace”. Unlikely to the point of impossibility.
Liability for malware distribution was something I haven’t seen proposed before but totally makes sense.
Liability for malware distribution was something I haven’t seen proposed before but totally makes sense.
I like how you are thinking. I do wonder if I'd get to see things like, say, Practical Engineering in an ad-free world. He seems to be passionate about it, so maybe?
It's utterly bizarre to me that this people still get this idea that everything would just stop?
Peertube et al exist. Patreon exists. Vimeo, Twitch, Tiktok. On one hand I'm absolutely aware that the TYPE of video content we have would change.
On the other, I'm not at all convinced that the destruction of YouTubes particular monetizing model would be a bad thing. I don't think much of value at all would be lost if people couldn't make money off Youtube the way they do now.
Peertube et al exist. Patreon exists. Vimeo, Twitch, Tiktok. On one hand I'm absolutely aware that the TYPE of video content we have would change.
On the other, I'm not at all convinced that the destruction of YouTubes particular monetizing model would be a bad thing. I don't think much of value at all would be lost if people couldn't make money off Youtube the way they do now.
I personally prefer free content made by volunteers and would like the whole web to be ad free. It would be fine for me if Youtube stopped operations and if all "income-oriented" content producers went away. I feel the same about websites. The Internet was fine before it became commercialized. I'm both creating and consuming free content (why not?) but I'm not willing to waste my time on watching ads or anything like that. For other things, I'm willing to pay.
Other people's mileage may differ, of course. It's just a personal preference.
Other people's mileage may differ, of course. It's just a personal preference.
The people that create the content you consume only have so many hours in the day, just like you. They need to pay the rent, buy groceries, get their kids braces, just like the test of us. It seems immoral and unrealistic to expect that for free. Consume it and support them or don't consume it and don't support them but the attitude that you're entitled to it is a little slimy.
No, making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross. Making that transaction indirect via psychological manipulation using intermediaries is even worse.
Discover better ways to support people who do useful work. Or rather, re-discover them since they are older than ads.
Discover better ways to support people who do useful work. Or rather, re-discover them since they are older than ads.
This is nuts. So movies shouldn’t charge either right? Or TV shows. Where is the line between something that you think should be free and what someone needs to be compensated for in order to make it? That line is determined by the creators. The people making money on YouTube do it as a full time gig why shouldn’t they get paid? Clearly if they weren’t they would be forced to do something else instead of video making.
YouTube is an amazing platform. It has allowed people to make videos about things they want and allowed people interested in that content to find it. Allowing people to pay (in various ways) for what they want means that other people can step up and provide that service instead of doing something else.
A good heuristic for when financial transactions are “gross” is if you are dealing with strangers or not. If you call your spouse from work and ask them to make and bring you a sandwich for lunch we would be horrified if they said it’ll cost you $20. On the other hand, no one should feel offended if you get charged when you call up a stranger to do the same thing.
There are different incentives at work in different spheres of life. Society depends on strangers doing things for other strangers. Google the Fatal Conceit to get the full picture. Bottom line is that there is nothing “gross” either for paying for something you want from a stranger or of them being paid for something they did for you.
YouTube is an amazing platform. It has allowed people to make videos about things they want and allowed people interested in that content to find it. Allowing people to pay (in various ways) for what they want means that other people can step up and provide that service instead of doing something else.
A good heuristic for when financial transactions are “gross” is if you are dealing with strangers or not. If you call your spouse from work and ask them to make and bring you a sandwich for lunch we would be horrified if they said it’ll cost you $20. On the other hand, no one should feel offended if you get charged when you call up a stranger to do the same thing.
There are different incentives at work in different spheres of life. Society depends on strangers doing things for other strangers. Google the Fatal Conceit to get the full picture. Bottom line is that there is nothing “gross” either for paying for something you want from a stranger or of them being paid for something they did for you.
> making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross
You seem to think that YouTube is "every human exchange". I'm going to let that speak for itself.
You seem to think that YouTube is "every human exchange". I'm going to let that speak for itself.
I made no such claim so the only thing you are letting speak is your lack of reading comprehension.
Do you get paid at work?
Huh? Why would it be immoral? I'm producing free content myself, e.g. my open source repositories have permissive licenses like MIT, I run a blog, have put some of my music online, etc. Seriously, chances are almost 100% percent that you are massively benefiting right now from completely free of charge software that some guys developed for free in their spare time (perhaps even decades ago) - how immoral of you!
I'm not the parent and would not say it's immoral but being able to produce content for free is a form of privilege. Not everyone has that luxury. Let's face it we live in a time where engineers make an absurd amount of money for the services they provide.
What are these mental gymnastics? You're practically saying nobody is allowed to make money for their content because you don't. Where is the logic in this?
You misunderstood me entirely. People can sell their content for whatever price they like. For example, I sell my science fiction and fantasy novels although I could give them away for free. I also used to sell shareware in the past and plan to sell commercial, proprietary software in the future.
People can freely decide whether they want to sell the content they've created or give it away for free. If it's the former, they should sell it, and if it's the latter, they should give it away for free. They just cannot and ought not rely on business models that restrict how people display information on their devices that has been sent to them voluntarily. As I said in the beginning, I have no quirks with Youtube going subscription-only.
People can freely decide whether they want to sell the content they've created or give it away for free. If it's the former, they should sell it, and if it's the latter, they should give it away for free. They just cannot and ought not rely on business models that restrict how people display information on their devices that has been sent to them voluntarily. As I said in the beginning, I have no quirks with Youtube going subscription-only.
I pay for Nebula, I pay for Patreon. I cannot find it in me to give Alphabet a red cent of my money. Alphabet's primary goal is to turn the internet into cable and I honestly have no stomach for it.
Furthermore, I have precious few moments on this earth, I have no desire to have to spend them watching propaganda from corps (and sometimes just unfiltered political propaganda).
But most of all, ads are a privacy and security risk like no other. They follow you across the internet for ages, sell your data to the highest bidder (sometimes that bidder is the feds) and are the foremost distribution network for malware.
Sorry, I rather YouTube go away than have to agree to the above.
Furthermore, I have precious few moments on this earth, I have no desire to have to spend them watching propaganda from corps (and sometimes just unfiltered political propaganda).
But most of all, ads are a privacy and security risk like no other. They follow you across the internet for ages, sell your data to the highest bidder (sometimes that bidder is the feds) and are the foremost distribution network for malware.
Sorry, I rather YouTube go away than have to agree to the above.
This reminds me of a business colleague of mine who truly does not understand why anyone would write software and then release it for free. There are many people willing to do that, and many people willing to create content on YouTube for free. We aren’t all driven by the almighty dollar.
I think that is totally fine. Serving it, of course, is not free. Content may not have been my best choice of words.
Because those companies are just taking the piss. They are like an abusive boyfriend that wants to know what you're up to all the time. They pretend you can pay them off so they won't have to stalk you, but the prices they ask are greatly exaggerated and exist solely to try and fool regulators.
But if you're happy to pay whatever is asked of you, that'll be a 100 dollars thanks
But if you're happy to pay whatever is asked of you, that'll be a 100 dollars thanks
Youtube premium is £12.99 / month or £19.99/month for a family plan.
That really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
That really doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
To know whether that is unreasonable or not you'd have to compare it to the cost of providing you that service, taking into account that youtube is just a delivery mechanism and so is infrastructure, not content.
And what is or is not affordable is really dependent on where you live and that kind of money is a very large amount in some places. And especially in those places access to youtube for educational purposes can be quite important.
And what is or is not affordable is really dependent on where you live and that kind of money is a very large amount in some places. And especially in those places access to youtube for educational purposes can be quite important.
Youtube premium also pays out the content creators you watch in lieu of the ads you don't watch does it not? At least that was my understanding.
If so it's not just the infrastructure cost which itself is not trivial for a site like youtube.
If so it's not just the infrastructure cost which itself is not trivial for a site like youtube.
Infrastructure costs are such that they're a rounding error on the total google budget.
With all respect, do you have a source for that? I thought Alphabet was losing money hand over fist on YT before they started being so aggressive with the ads.
Let's for the moment assume that you are right, then they shouldn't have bought it in ... 2006, all of 17 years ago. And if they are short of money why are they pushing more and more junk on people? Let's start with switching off autoplay by default, limiting videos to 640x480, and offering creators to pay for the hosting so that their video can be shipped, just like I pay for the hosting of my web servers.
Their whole position is horribly inconsistent.
Their whole position is horribly inconsistent.
Were they losing or weren't they making enough to satisfy their greed?
Why would the cost of providing YT be relevant? I look at the value I get, and YT Premium is a no brainer.
Here in South Africa YT Premium Family is R109.99/mo (5.83 USD). By comparison, Netflix is R159/mo. Minimum wage is R25.42/hr.
Here in South Africa YT Premium Family is R109.99/mo (5.83 USD). By comparison, Netflix is R159/mo. Minimum wage is R25.42/hr.
Because infrastructure is cost+, Neflix gives you content that they have the rights to.
I agree, and I think its also important to fund the creators making the content we consume. Artists need patrons and YouTube has made that possible and practical on a scale humanity has never seen. That's a valuable thing, and if google wants to get paid for it, I don't begrudge that.
Ads are phycological warfare and must be eradicated with prejudice but asking the audience to chip in a couple bucks a month seems reasonable to me.
Ads are phycological warfare and must be eradicated with prejudice but asking the audience to chip in a couple bucks a month seems reasonable to me.
I watch like 5 videos a month. No way they're making more than $1, maybe $2, off of advertising to me. Why would I pay them 10x that? Don't be ridiculous.
> Feels like even when a company provides a way to get rid of ads, many people still won't pay.
I don’t think it’ll ever be possible to get everyone to pay, but if it’s easy to pay and priced low enough, paying becomes the easiest option for a lot of people. Why bother pirating music in 2023 when any number of music streaming services are about $10-11/mo?
YouTube Premium bundles YouTube music and costs $19/mo. This is higher than (or on par) a lot of streaming subscriptions.
Another annoyance is that it’s bundled with a music service. Some non-US markets experimented with a cheaper ad-free-YouTube only tier for less than half the price. When that tier of service can be offered, it is very hard to think most of the $19 goes towards storage, bandwidth, and operational overhead.
I don’t think it’ll ever be possible to get everyone to pay, but if it’s easy to pay and priced low enough, paying becomes the easiest option for a lot of people. Why bother pirating music in 2023 when any number of music streaming services are about $10-11/mo?
YouTube Premium bundles YouTube music and costs $19/mo. This is higher than (or on par) a lot of streaming subscriptions.
Another annoyance is that it’s bundled with a music service. Some non-US markets experimented with a cheaper ad-free-YouTube only tier for less than half the price. When that tier of service can be offered, it is very hard to think most of the $19 goes towards storage, bandwidth, and operational overhead.
Keep in mind this is a random reddit thread I found and I can't vouch for the information, but: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/177353i/you_should...
According to that, $8.55 of your $19 would go to the creators. Presumably the other $10.45 goes for storage, bandwidth, operational overhead, and profit.
According to that, $8.55 of your $19 would go to the creators. Presumably the other $10.45 goes for storage, bandwidth, operational overhead, and profit.
Interesting! I haven’t done much digging but that is a much larger share than I was expecting.
Most "content" is not made with intent of monetization. Having less cash grab "content" and more genuine expressions would not be a bad thing.
If centralized hosting of such "content" becomes unsustainable then that's even better.
If centralized hosting of such "content" becomes unsustainable then that's even better.
> They _say_ they will, but I find often people will want to substitute their own terms (Well, youtube premium is $x, but I think it's only worth $y, so I'm going to just block ads completely).
That just means, by definition, that the prices YouTube are trying to charge are too high, doesn't it? What we're seeing is basically a negotiation tactic: you either reduce the price, or we'll keep using ad blockers.
Not to mention, most creators don't really live off YouTube ads, those pay too little for the vast majority of channels as far as I understand. Creators live off their own sponsorships, Patreon etc.
Note, I'm actually someone who thinks YouTube Premium is good value for my money and am already paying for it.
That just means, by definition, that the prices YouTube are trying to charge are too high, doesn't it? What we're seeing is basically a negotiation tactic: you either reduce the price, or we'll keep using ad blockers.
Not to mention, most creators don't really live off YouTube ads, those pay too little for the vast majority of channels as far as I understand. Creators live off their own sponsorships, Patreon etc.
Note, I'm actually someone who thinks YouTube Premium is good value for my money and am already paying for it.
In this circumstance there isn't a price those people would be willing to pay.
They simply want the service for free, refuse to pay but are unwilling to come out and say as much, so they use host of justifications to avoid it.
They simply want the service for free, refuse to pay but are unwilling to come out and say as much, so they use host of justifications to avoid it.
I think they are simply saying they’d rather not have the platform at all than pay for it.
Which is fair.
Which is fair.
Maybe. I think "too high" is probably subjective to each person.
But, I'm in the camp of "if it's too high, just stop using it". I think this isn't different than most things. If I think the price of electricity is too high, my option isn't to say "well, your price it too high, so I'm going to use electricity for free".
But, I'm in the camp of "if it's too high, just stop using it". I think this isn't different than most things. If I think the price of electricity is too high, my option isn't to say "well, your price it too high, so I'm going to use electricity for free".
I block ads both because $14/mo is too much for me (I simply don't use YouTube enough to get that much value out of it), I object to ad-funded models (I don't want to watch a few ads instead of pay for Premium), and I strongly object to giving Google money because of their extremely broad portfolio of evil behavior (e.g. the terrible DMCA process - it's actually bad for creators to stay, and I want them to leave!)
I would pay to watch videos using microtransactions on a platform that is not owned by a depraved company. I have no objections to compensating creators for their work in general (unlike a lot of people here, who feel entitled to get everything for free).
I would pay to watch videos using microtransactions on a platform that is not owned by a depraved company. I have no objections to compensating creators for their work in general (unlike a lot of people here, who feel entitled to get everything for free).
> If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made?
I'd be quite fine if the only "content" is funded by patreons (I give £60/month to various patreons) or just people doing it for non-financial reasons.
I'd be quite fine if the only "content" is funded by patreons (I give £60/month to various patreons) or just people doing it for non-financial reasons.
If content creators leave YouTube for better platforms, and those platforms become even better as a consequence, I count that as a big win. I would love if platforms like Nebula would get a real chance at life. But nebula is only for educational content. I miss the comedy part of YouTube and would gladly pay the same I pay nebula for an extra "comedy tube" subscription of comparable content quality.
For every one youtuber making a living, there's 1000s making pennies.
I'm old enough to remember that content creators existed before the youtube monetization machine.
I think if there's one thing we can rely on not stopping, it's people's urge to create and share
I'm old enough to remember that content creators existed before the youtube monetization machine.
I think if there's one thing we can rely on not stopping, it's people's urge to create and share
This has nothing to do with content. Patreon, non-profit and other models exist for this purpose.
I still won't pay because I consider YouTube predatory with their ads. they are not a company focused on providing a service and making a reasonable profit on top. their ad policies are about maximum extraction from the platform, couple with aggressive behavior towards content creators that make the platform. I used to be fine with the ads, but they got greedy and ratcheted it up way to much. now I block them all or don't use the service. yt could have had my ad views, but they demanded too much.
Youtube and friends only have themselves to blame: the tighter they turn the ad screw the more people they push to ad blockers. We went from a single tolerable, skippable 5 seconds ad segment to multiple unskipable very long segments in just a few years.
I say this as someone who pays for YouTube Premium.
I say this as someone who pays for YouTube Premium.
And that's before we get into the content of the ads themselves, which is beyond insulting.
[deleted]
> If we take this to an extreme, doesn't content just not get made?
If the content is made only because of the ads, is it still content or actually an ad ?
If the content is made only because of the ads, is it still content or actually an ad ?
Sure and platforms _say_ they will give you an ad free experience if you pay them a monthly fee but they always wind up adding ads once they’ve captured their audience.
So you don’t support them because of what they might do later? That’s insane. Support the platforms you like right now. If they get worse you stop supporting them. “Captured” is such a dramatic term. Nothing stops a person from walking away from a video service.
Can’t help but think the worry about future ads is simply rationalization for pirating now.
Can’t help but think the worry about future ads is simply rationalization for pirating now.
I have a hard time having sympathy for a platform that ruined my suggested videos feed and then proceeds to put two unskippable ads plus a skippable one at the start of videos plus more ads in the middle and end. When uBlock stopped working I actually stuck with chrome and thought I’d give ads a shot knowing that some of the money would go to creators but the ads literally got worse over the course of a few weeks so I’m happily going back to blocking now.
We are forcing cooperations to take a shareholder value cut and pivot away from advertising models that do no longer work.
Taking it to the extreme is pointless: the other extreme is that YT is only ads. That doesn't make sense either.
Here is my problem with the ads: the same ads will repeat many times over the course of a video, some ads will blast obnoxiously loud, and there are just way too many ads.
Also when I say too many ads, it's not just YouTube - we are bombarded by ads everywhere now. A few days ago I was watching a 4hr YT stream on my Fire Stick (and don't block ads there) and they were cutting to ads every 5min. Also I sometimes like to listen to music during walks and cutting to an ad in the middle of a 3min song is so ridiculous and obtrusive.
YouTube premium is expensive, especially if you have other streaming services.
This is Google's problem to solve, not ours. When you are "at war" with your customers, then the business needs to stop and think "what am I doing wrong". Under capitalism, it's the buyer that decides what your product or service is worth. YouTube Premium isn't worth $14/mo to me, so yes, I will continue to block ads as much as I can.
Here is my problem with the ads: the same ads will repeat many times over the course of a video, some ads will blast obnoxiously loud, and there are just way too many ads.
Also when I say too many ads, it's not just YouTube - we are bombarded by ads everywhere now. A few days ago I was watching a 4hr YT stream on my Fire Stick (and don't block ads there) and they were cutting to ads every 5min. Also I sometimes like to listen to music during walks and cutting to an ad in the middle of a 3min song is so ridiculous and obtrusive.
YouTube premium is expensive, especially if you have other streaming services.
This is Google's problem to solve, not ours. When you are "at war" with your customers, then the business needs to stop and think "what am I doing wrong". Under capitalism, it's the buyer that decides what your product or service is worth. YouTube Premium isn't worth $14/mo to me, so yes, I will continue to block ads as much as I can.
well, commercial content takes a hit.
>What is most interesting about this whole adblocking war: we're winning.
Until Google changes how the web works and all other browsers will align. And they can do that, since they almost own the web trough Chrome.
Until Google changes how the web works and all other browsers will align. And they can do that, since they almost own the web trough Chrome.
Twitch "permanently" won by injecting ads directly on the feed, right now best you can do is sneak swap the small resolution version that stay on the side until they also removed this.
Actually the modern vaft script can completely bypass ads and has seen minimal changes for well over a year. Twitch gave up because most people, even the tech savvy ones, don't know about the solutions anymore.
https://github.com/pixeltris/TwitchAdSolutions
https://github.com/pixeltris/TwitchAdSolutions
You can also VPN to a country that they don't serve ads to.
Yup. Webbundles and the other thingie.
There’s no need at all to rely on Chrome: If Google wanted to, they could enable DRM for all videos on Youtube today. Almost every desktop and mobile browser supports it.
They’d lose a couple of legacy client apps, but much less traffic than they would if they were to make it Chrome-only.
They’d lose a couple of legacy client apps, but much less traffic than they would if they were to make it Chrome-only.
And this is what would happen.
The only reason why it is not happening - many users would go and watch tiktok instead or FB videos would get a chance.
I don't see the reason to support the company, which dreams to make internet worse.
I don't see the reason to support the company, which dreams to make internet worse.
They could always exempt Youtube Shorts (which are competing with TikTok/Instagram reels etc.) from DRM and only apply it to longer-form content. Shorts don't get ads anyway in my experience (but I almost never use them).
shorts and CC licensed videos
Then use Firefox and/or non chromium based browsers.
Don't play the game. It's not a new game. Remember when Linux was "evil commie software"?
Don't play the game. It's not a new game. Remember when Linux was "evil commie software"?
I like Firefox, but isn't Firefox funded by Google?
In the sense that Google pays for search engine placement, yes. They also pay Apple for the same thing - I'd hesitate to say that gives them much influence over either Firefox or Safari.
Not sure that's the case, recent discussion on Firefox was not inspiring: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38531104.
Maybe they are making such a fuss because it works and people end up switching to chrome / removing ad block :(.
Would be nice to see recent download graph of firefox or ublock origin so see if there is any impact.
Maybe they are making such a fuss because it works and people end up switching to chrome / removing ad block :(.
Would be nice to see recent download graph of firefox or ublock origin so see if there is any impact.
For me the opposite: chrome was making an entrance on account of supporting WebMIDI and I gave them the benefit of the doubt for a bit but this is the bit that did it for me and besides some compatibility testing FF all the way for me.
Google is already receiving plenty of money, if they promoted youtube as a commons they should maintain it as a commons. This bait-and-switch crap has gone more than far enough.
Remember, not all that long ago their mantra was 'we don't care about ad blockers because it is only such a small percentage'. Look now.
Google is already receiving plenty of money, if they promoted youtube as a commons they should maintain it as a commons. This bait-and-switch crap has gone more than far enough.
Remember, not all that long ago their mantra was 'we don't care about ad blockers because it is only such a small percentage'. Look now.
I hope so :).
I just see it, in the current context of layoff, as them wanting/needing more money and hoping blocker either leave (and stop costing them bandwidth) or switch to YT Premium.
I do believe that the worsening experience on YT could be a win by making platform I want to support such as nebula more attractive. Or that it could backfire with a global adblock adoption making the current ad economy less viable.
I'm just unsure if chrome/YT is not already too entrenched and that people won't use ad blocker or switch.
I just see it, in the current context of layoff, as them wanting/needing more money and hoping blocker either leave (and stop costing them bandwidth) or switch to YT Premium.
I do believe that the worsening experience on YT could be a win by making platform I want to support such as nebula more attractive. Or that it could backfire with a global adblock adoption making the current ad economy less viable.
I'm just unsure if chrome/YT is not already too entrenched and that people won't use ad blocker or switch.
Google has plenty of money, but it's never enough and so you get this kind of ridiculously hostile activity. I can't even watch my own videos without being bombarded by ads. That wasn't the case when I uploaded it so in my opinion that's bait-and-switch. They can pull these stunts on newly uploaded works with new T&C but to retroactively claim editorial control over the page where the videos appear is just abuse of power. If they were about to go out of business on account of how youtube is such a terrible loss leader it might garner some sympathy but as it is it is just a Google power play and a money grab to me.
Anecdotally, I just made the switch to FF from Chrome. And my only complaint is that Google Earth is practically unusable. Other than that, I love the customization and have no difference from Chrome. Extension support is just as good.
If we annoy Google enough they'll have 3 different adblock detectors available and 2 of them won't ever be loaded on the filterlist maintainers computers :)
Youtube seems to me to be a bullshit test platform.
They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to do with the user until they reach breaking point (where people flee and seek alternatives), and then they will relax their system to show marginally less bullshit.
The confusing part of this battle is the app users, who do not agree with the avalanche of adverts, don't want to pay to scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears, and cannot kick the awful habit.
They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to do with the user until they reach breaking point (where people flee and seek alternatives), and then they will relax their system to show marginally less bullshit.
The confusing part of this battle is the app users, who do not agree with the avalanche of adverts, don't want to pay to scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears, and cannot kick the awful habit.
Video hosting is expensive and needs to be paid for somehow. Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does.
You can go the Nebula route and require users to pay (which means far fewer users) or require creators to pay (which means far fewer creators). You could also require creators to host the videos themselves, but that also requires money, expertise and causes downtime when a video goes viral.
There's also P2P, but far too many users are on mobile and behind NATs these days for that to make sense. Even if this wasn't the case, P2P is a privacy and legal nightmare, it's trivial for companies to track what IP addresses watch what videos, and seeding of copyright-infringing content usually has far worse legal consequences than merely watching.
You can go the Nebula route and require users to pay (which means far fewer users) or require creators to pay (which means far fewer creators). You could also require creators to host the videos themselves, but that also requires money, expertise and causes downtime when a video goes viral.
There's also P2P, but far too many users are on mobile and behind NATs these days for that to make sense. Even if this wasn't the case, P2P is a privacy and legal nightmare, it's trivial for companies to track what IP addresses watch what videos, and seeding of copyright-infringing content usually has far worse legal consequences than merely watching.
Sure, ad revenue is an important method of funding media, but that is a very different claim from saying that YouTube's implementation of ad delivery is anything close to good.
The simple fact is that the ad ecosystem YouTube directs has produced lots of low effort "content" farming, enterprises focused on raw output at the expense of quality, truth, and frequently the intellectual property of others.
The simple fact is that the ad ecosystem YouTube directs has produced lots of low effort "content" farming, enterprises focused on raw output at the expense of quality, truth, and frequently the intellectual property of others.
> Sure, ad revenue is an important method of funding media
No it isn't. It's a horrible method of funding media because as you correctly realized it ends up lowering the quality of that media. This isn't just a problem with YouTube's implementation, it is an inherent aspect of ad-based funding.
No it isn't. It's a horrible method of funding media because as you correctly realized it ends up lowering the quality of that media. This isn't just a problem with YouTube's implementation, it is an inherent aspect of ad-based funding.
I didn't say it is a desirable method, but look at any (mass) media and you will find ads and sponsorships there: clearly they are important to the production of (mass) media.
I mean, the other well known way is to pay with money directly. YT offers that. But certain people don't want to pay, either directly or with their attention.
What other avenue is there to pay for stuff you consume ?
What other avenue is there to pay for stuff you consume ?
That may be true, but if you don't like YouTube, go somewhere else.
The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors.
So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else.
I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.
The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors.
So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else.
I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.
You can’t just “go somewhere else” your way out of social networks the same way you can with things and places that have linear impact/presence.
Some people would be ok with paying but you cannot pay and still be an anonymous user. You need to be logged in and trust that Google won’t track you if you ask them not to.
How about no?
There are anti competitive practices at place here and we are not supposed to just sit and take it, not all of us are Americans that accept unrestricted capitalism with the no breaks.
I suppose you were also fine with Unity's change of toś and pricing, but many others weren't. We sent a strong enough message to the company so that their CEO resigned and hit them hard in the wallet and now they know better. As should you.
What happened here is they cornered the market (a monopoly), and now are rising prices and making it impossible to use their product without giving them both your data AND money. The same thing can happen to your water, electricity and phone bills, if the governments didn't mandate anticompetitive practices in law. That is the same reason Verizon in the US is so expensive yet so bad in terms of value for money.
Stop pushing your 'accept it or move on' mentality on others. There is lot to be done here with collective action and government support, not every country is 'everybody on their own' and 'Big Corp rule' like the US. So stop it.
We don't want to go somewhere else unless we can help it, and are willing to fight for a better internet.
I suppose you were also fine with Unity's change of toś and pricing, but many others weren't. We sent a strong enough message to the company so that their CEO resigned and hit them hard in the wallet and now they know better. As should you.
What happened here is they cornered the market (a monopoly), and now are rising prices and making it impossible to use their product without giving them both your data AND money. The same thing can happen to your water, electricity and phone bills, if the governments didn't mandate anticompetitive practices in law. That is the same reason Verizon in the US is so expensive yet so bad in terms of value for money.
Stop pushing your 'accept it or move on' mentality on others. There is lot to be done here with collective action and government support, not every country is 'everybody on their own' and 'Big Corp rule' like the US. So stop it.
We don't want to go somewhere else unless we can help it, and are willing to fight for a better internet.
I'm curious -- what do you want to happen in this situation? What is your best desired outcome? It sounds like you are arguing that video sharing sites are a utility?
Video sharing sites of the size/impact of Youtube, similarly to social platforms like Facebook/Instagram/Twitter whatever, and platforms like Google Search/Maps, etc have a tremendous impact on society. They have become a major way of how people communicate, make daily choices, purchasing decisions, vacation plans, etc.
When a company is that big and that impactful (despite being a for-profit company), it is in interest to the general public that there are some checks and balances in place.
For me, the best scenarios is governments involve themselves as they involve themselves in other areas of business:
- telecommunications and utilities (Verizon)
- transport (Uber has different treaties/operating models in different countries)
- online marketplaces (Google)
Only through treating these behemoths as providers of "public goods/utilities" via our governments, can we have them not regressing to what any monopoly would naturally regress to: arrogant hands-twisting thugs, not afraid to exploit their users for every penny.
Keep in mind that governments already DO involve themselves in the business (mal)practices of these tech giants. For example, Tesla's new cybergarbage is unlikely to pass a scruitiny in the EU due to pedestrian safety/impact concerns. Google/Facebook/Instagram all have to respect the GDPR and its US cousin the CCPA, etc, etc. If it wasn't for measures like this, you'd not have "do-not-track" options in your browser, nor would you have adblockers in the Google play store...
I simply want MORE, quicker and better government involvement into anticompetitive practices that (mostly) US tech giants use.
When a company is that big and that impactful (despite being a for-profit company), it is in interest to the general public that there are some checks and balances in place.
For me, the best scenarios is governments involve themselves as they involve themselves in other areas of business:
- telecommunications and utilities (Verizon)
- transport (Uber has different treaties/operating models in different countries)
- online marketplaces (Google)
Only through treating these behemoths as providers of "public goods/utilities" via our governments, can we have them not regressing to what any monopoly would naturally regress to: arrogant hands-twisting thugs, not afraid to exploit their users for every penny.
Keep in mind that governments already DO involve themselves in the business (mal)practices of these tech giants. For example, Tesla's new cybergarbage is unlikely to pass a scruitiny in the EU due to pedestrian safety/impact concerns. Google/Facebook/Instagram all have to respect the GDPR and its US cousin the CCPA, etc, etc. If it wasn't for measures like this, you'd not have "do-not-track" options in your browser, nor would you have adblockers in the Google play store...
I simply want MORE, quicker and better government involvement into anticompetitive practices that (mostly) US tech giants use.
How much more tax are you willing to pay to have these extra utilities be run by govts?
The government should be taxing higher the profits of the big companies and the top earners and reinvesting the money in governance of them.
I think if you are above 500k yearly income, the taxation rate should be something around 80-90% on every cent above that threshold.
I think if you are above 500k yearly income, the taxation rate should be something around 80-90% on every cent above that threshold.
in other words, the proposed is a policy for which other people (whom you view as having more wealth) gets taxed for a benefit for which you will gain.
In my country I am taxed 52%, and I don't mind that. I clearly see the money going into public infrastructure, roads, public transport, social housing, greening the cities, etc. If I am unable to work due to illness, I will benefit from 80% of my salary for many years, and after that, 70%. You should give more to the system proportionately to how wealthy you are. People with 10 mansions and a fleet of cars and a private jet while there are homeless on the streets, that is an abberation. The current system is failing because when people get beyond a certain amount of wealth, their wealth can increase exponentially, while they are not taxed exponentially. It's a finite planet, after all. Infinite wealth growth of a few while many can barely afford rent is like cancer and should be taxed to oblivion.
If I was earning more, I would not mind sharing an ever increasing percentage of that in terms of taxes. I don't need 20 houses and 20 cars, and my own rocket, no individual person needs that. People like that should not be allowed to exist by the government.
If I was earning more, I would not mind sharing an ever increasing percentage of that in terms of taxes. I don't need 20 houses and 20 cars, and my own rocket, no individual person needs that. People like that should not be allowed to exist by the government.
So what, specifically, do you want to see different about Youtube?
Btw here are two recent examples what can be done when a monopoly like Youtube tries using their dominant position in the market to squeeze workers or consumers:
- Organized action in all Nordics vs Tesla, where Musk thought he can simply do whatever he wants to the workers and their wages and not negotiate with the unions: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/05/danish-union-j...
- FTC finally chasing telecoms for the insane prices of broadband in America https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/12/the-telecom-industry-is-...
As you can see, both organized worker action and government oversight work very well to curb greedy companies. So please, when you see people outraged and trying to organize, if you don't want to join, don't, but don't try to tell people to 'just accept it', because we won't. We are angry and have had it up to here with corporate greed.
Organized action and government regulation work!
- Organized action in all Nordics vs Tesla, where Musk thought he can simply do whatever he wants to the workers and their wages and not negotiate with the unions: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/05/danish-union-j...
- FTC finally chasing telecoms for the insane prices of broadband in America https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/12/the-telecom-industry-is-...
As you can see, both organized worker action and government oversight work very well to curb greedy companies. So please, when you see people outraged and trying to organize, if you don't want to join, don't, but don't try to tell people to 'just accept it', because we won't. We are angry and have had it up to here with corporate greed.
Organized action and government regulation work!
Three things:
- go to it's pre-aggressive-ablocking-removal state
- pay the content creators better
- moderate better so people like Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, etc don't get a platform
- go to it's pre-aggressive-ablocking-removal state
- pay the content creators better
- moderate better so people like Andrew Tate, Alex Jones, etc don't get a platform
>Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does
I think there's still plenty of room for innovation in the ad serving front. YouTube is far worse than it used to be. It currently has multiple ads in a 10 minute video many of which have one 5-10 second mandatory clip followed by a much longer clip that can be skipped after 5-10 seconds.
The "you have to have the remote in hand to prevent even more ads" is pretty user hostile.
To make matters worse, on Android TV/Roku, many ads require HDCP so it's pretty normal for the device to require a reboot when ads start playing if the HDCP negotiation fails.
Youtube Premium is pretty expensive for a casual user ($144/yr).
The cost of servers/bandwidth isn't lost on me and Google gets the best rates in the industry, nonetheless. They're sufficiently big they can stick cache devices all over the place directly inside ISP networks (I assume they don't pay power/bandwidth on these since ISPs end up saving money)
I think there's still plenty of room for innovation in the ad serving front. YouTube is far worse than it used to be. It currently has multiple ads in a 10 minute video many of which have one 5-10 second mandatory clip followed by a much longer clip that can be skipped after 5-10 seconds.
The "you have to have the remote in hand to prevent even more ads" is pretty user hostile.
To make matters worse, on Android TV/Roku, many ads require HDCP so it's pretty normal for the device to require a reboot when ads start playing if the HDCP negotiation fails.
Youtube Premium is pretty expensive for a casual user ($144/yr).
The cost of servers/bandwidth isn't lost on me and Google gets the best rates in the industry, nonetheless. They're sufficiently big they can stick cache devices all over the place directly inside ISP networks (I assume they don't pay power/bandwidth on these since ISPs end up saving money)
I used to host video on a custom site, mainly lecture material for an audience of about 100-200 people so there were no economies of scale involved. A VPS with 2TB of transfer was about 10eur/m. Video was encoded for about 500MB/hr (encoders have improved, but hosting prices have probably increased so figures are just ballpark).
As a (very) small scale provider video was costing me about 0.25 cents / hour. It is certainly cheaper for a larger provider. Ad rates are not that low, the margins involved are huge.
For a premium server I would take a heavy user as a model, say 8hr/day, giving a cost of 60 cents per month. Assume processing fees and overheads are about 30%, and a user is willing to pay $10/m for a service. That still leaves $6.40 to be split between platform and content creator.
Yes, video is expensive compared to text. But in absolute terms the costs are not that expensive.
As a (very) small scale provider video was costing me about 0.25 cents / hour. It is certainly cheaper for a larger provider. Ad rates are not that low, the margins involved are huge.
For a premium server I would take a heavy user as a model, say 8hr/day, giving a cost of 60 cents per month. Assume processing fees and overheads are about 30%, and a user is willing to pay $10/m for a service. That still leaves $6.40 to be split between platform and content creator.
Yes, video is expensive compared to text. But in absolute terms the costs are not that expensive.
> Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does.
PeerTube distributes the load among many independent servers, which can be even run by individuals. So no, not every competitor will have the same problems.
PeerTube distributes the load among many independent servers, which can be even run by individuals. So no, not every competitor will have the same problems.
So the cost is borne by users' power bills, data rates and available bandwidth. If PeerTube usage were scaled to the level of Youtube (making it a competitor) that would absolutely turn into a problem.
Depends on the number of servers. Each of them can be very small.
What about someone who gets several million views per video they upload? You would need one hell of a peertube instance with a great CDN to manage that so people all over the world can watch it without constant buffering.
Peertube technically has P2P, but these days with strict NAT or CGNAT being common good luck getting any kind of P2P connection going for the majority of people. Plus a lot of people on both home and mobile connections have very restrictive data caps.
Peertube technically has P2P, but these days with strict NAT or CGNAT being common good luck getting any kind of P2P connection going for the majority of people. Plus a lot of people on both home and mobile connections have very restrictive data caps.
> You would need one hell of a peertube instance with a great CDN to manage that so people all over the world
Peertube relies on peer-to-peer data exchange, so the server loads are much lower than you imply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38533454
Peertube relies on peer-to-peer data exchange, so the server loads are much lower than you imply: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38533454
Yeah I addressed that in my comment too. The link you sent doesn't show any data that I can see? It would be neat to see someone actually test peertube under heavy load with data to back it up.
> Video hosting is expensive and needs to be paid for somehow. Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does.
Nope. PeerTube and the like is an alternative.
Nope. PeerTube and the like is an alternative.
Peertube is just self hosted video hosting. You either need to pay someone a lot of money to host it for you, or do it yourself with the constant maintenance that comes with it.
The claim was not that video needs to be hosted but that video hosting is expensive. It's not, because we can easily distribute the cost now.
How do we distribute the cost? Say a popular creator uploads a video to a peertube instance and gets 10 million views, the video is 10 minutes and 15mbps bitrate, that's roughly 10 petabytes of data the peertube server needs to send.
If we take say, Vultr as an example for outgoing data costs, that's something like $100,000 of data for a single video.
Yes P2P will take some of that load off, but not that much with how restrictive NAT is these days.
If we take say, Vultr as an example for outgoing data costs, that's something like $100,000 of data for a single video.
Yes P2P will take some of that load off, but not that much with how restrictive NAT is these days.
> If we take say, Vultr as an example for outgoing data costs, that's something like $100,000 of data for a single video.
I'm not really sure what you didn't understand about distributing the video and cost.
I'm not really sure what you didn't understand about distributing the video and cost.
Can you explain it a little? Because I'm not sure I get it. As far as I know peertube is centralized with a P2P element on top, but P2P only works if at least one side has an open port.
It sounds like you get it but what I'm saying is you just add colo'd (or whatever) peers. Nobody in particular needs to be responsible for that. Bandwidth in Eastern Europe, for example, is dirt cheap - practically free. It'd be similar to how we do Mastodon: a bunch of different peer networks with a bunch of different funding and management models. You don't need to rely on the instance server for hosting, just initial seeding. Think of it like the original seeder in BitTorrent (a model which we see working great to this day because people rent dirt cheap seedboxes.)
Does peertube support using another host as a dedicated P2P peer, and it would load balance over available hosts? I feel like I looked into that before and it was only clients watching the video that could do it.
But if it can now, that would be the missing piece that I wasn't getting.
But if it can now, that would be the missing piece that I wasn't getting.
As far as I understand it that is possible in multiple ways. What's not currently possible (unless something changed) is load balancing write operation.
Peertube is literally just self hosting.
>Video hosting is expensive and needs to be paid for somehow
If it's SO expensive, and SO needs to be paid somehow by someone why do they waste so much time and money trying to push videos on me I've either A) Already watched, B) have blocked and said "Don't recommend this channel" or C) are not even related to my search query at all, yeah YouTube I'm aware Sniperwolf and MrBeast exist, No I don't want to watch them now or ever I'm searching for pasta recipes and I'm certain you have more than 4 you could show me before trying to get me to watch asinine sniperbeast content.
If it's SO expensive, and SO needs to be paid somehow by someone why do they waste so much time and money trying to push videos on me I've either A) Already watched, B) have blocked and said "Don't recommend this channel" or C) are not even related to my search query at all, yeah YouTube I'm aware Sniperwolf and MrBeast exist, No I don't want to watch them now or ever I'm searching for pasta recipes and I'm certain you have more than 4 you could show me before trying to get me to watch asinine sniperbeast content.
I don’t know. When youtube bypassed adblockers on iOS, I found it quite natural to break that habit and stop using youtube.
I stopped watching TV 20 years ago, I have been using ad blockers as soon as they were introduced. The habit of not having to sit and watch some commercials is the most entrenched one in me. Hard to reverse a 20y habit.
I stopped watching TV 20 years ago, I have been using ad blockers as soon as they were introduced. The habit of not having to sit and watch some commercials is the most entrenched one in me. Hard to reverse a 20y habit.
This could be simply a coincidence, but it's possible they already relax their system based on user behavior.
I used to watch YT through the TV app until the ads became insanely outrageous (six unskippable ads for a 10 min video, including two ads one minute after the video has started). Then I just bought a mini pc and plugged it in the TV and everything was fine (except for HDR that for some reason doesn't work) and without ads.
Then a couple of weeks ago I opened the YT app on TV and it was actually a much better experience than before: skippable ads, no ads on some videos. As if they're trying to lure me to use it again.
I used to watch YT through the TV app until the ads became insanely outrageous (six unskippable ads for a 10 min video, including two ads one minute after the video has started). Then I just bought a mini pc and plugged it in the TV and everything was fine (except for HDR that for some reason doesn't work) and without ads.
Then a couple of weeks ago I opened the YT app on TV and it was actually a much better experience than before: skippable ads, no ads on some videos. As if they're trying to lure me to use it again.
They are definitely A/B testing ad tolerance.
I reset the TV app whenever the ads become unreasonable, and every time I do that, the skip ads button reverts back to the original style (skip all ads after 5 seconds).
But if I login to an account, or use an anonymous session for long enough, the skip ads button will switch to the progress ring style, with 60+ seconds of unskippable ads. When that happens, I reset the app again.
I reset the TV app whenever the ads become unreasonable, and every time I do that, the skip ads button reverts back to the original style (skip all ads after 5 seconds).
But if I login to an account, or use an anonymous session for long enough, the skip ads button will switch to the progress ring style, with 60+ seconds of unskippable ads. When that happens, I reset the app again.
I still can't believe there wasn't greater pushback to the removal of visible dislikes. They were incredibly useful as a quick indicator to see if something might be wrong with a video.
> scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears
I use a little user script that redirects me from YT shorts URLs to a normal video player URL. I found that it adds just enough friction to getting the next video that just scrolling shorts for an hour doesn't happen anymore.
Added bonus is that you can rewind a bit of video if you want to, instead of having to watch the entire video again.
I use a little user script that redirects me from YT shorts URLs to a normal video player URL. I found that it adds just enough friction to getting the next video that just scrolling shorts for an hour doesn't happen anymore.
Added bonus is that you can rewind a bit of video if you want to, instead of having to watch the entire video again.
I used uBlock to completely remove shorts from my browser. I have been getting sucked into shorts as I am thirsty male :(.
If what you're saying is that people who don't watch ads and don't pay for Premium will leave the platform, that seems like a desirable outcome to Google.
Unlikely. They need all the uploaders, and the uploaders need all the viewers, and they need both of those to be in the unholy massive numbers. Well, they want. No one actually needs to be a trillion dollar business instead of a million dollar business.
But the point is it's unlikely they want all non-premium users to go elsewhere, not even merely the non-premium ad-blocking users.
In fact, they don't even really want premium users if it means not still showing them ads somehow and still collecting data on them. They offer premium more or less begrudgingly because they sort of have to in order to excuse the user-hostile behavior everywhere else.
Like donating to Firefox. They donate to firefox only so that they can make chrome as terrible as they want, and point to the existense of firefox as the answer to any complaints. They don't actually want anyone to use firefox. But it's better to let a few escape than to have the bulk decide to make laws they don't want.
Ptemium is the same. They don't really want any premium users. Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data.
Which is pretty much what they do actually. Premium doesn't actually remove all the bad elements of youtube. It just goes from pulling 8 of your fingernails out to only pulling 5 of your fingernails out.
But the point is it's unlikely they want all non-premium users to go elsewhere, not even merely the non-premium ad-blocking users.
In fact, they don't even really want premium users if it means not still showing them ads somehow and still collecting data on them. They offer premium more or less begrudgingly because they sort of have to in order to excuse the user-hostile behavior everywhere else.
Like donating to Firefox. They donate to firefox only so that they can make chrome as terrible as they want, and point to the existense of firefox as the answer to any complaints. They don't actually want anyone to use firefox. But it's better to let a few escape than to have the bulk decide to make laws they don't want.
Ptemium is the same. They don't really want any premium users. Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data.
Which is pretty much what they do actually. Premium doesn't actually remove all the bad elements of youtube. It just goes from pulling 8 of your fingernails out to only pulling 5 of your fingernails out.
uploaders care for premium payers. They receive much more money for them. There'll also be some ppl that will watch with ads despite them being so intrusive, I guess yt uploaders will be ok
> and the uploaders need all the viewers
Not at all. Non-paying viewers are worth less than zero.
> Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. > Which is pretty much what they do actually.
What are you talking about? There are no ads with premium.
Not at all. Non-paying viewers are worth less than zero.
> Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. > Which is pretty much what they do actually.
What are you talking about? There are no ads with premium.
> What are you talking about? There are no ads with premium.
These threads always have a bunch of this weird type of person who doesn't understand that ads from YouTube and ads that content creators put in their videos are different things. I can't tell if they're being intentionally obtuse, or just legitimately do not understand how financial transactions work. Maybe they're teenagers who haven't worked a job before?
These threads always have a bunch of this weird type of person who doesn't understand that ads from YouTube and ads that content creators put in their videos are different things. I can't tell if they're being intentionally obtuse, or just legitimately do not understand how financial transactions work. Maybe they're teenagers who haven't worked a job before?
[removed because of misunderstanding]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I am agreeing with you and expanding on your comment. Not disagreeing.
> (where people flee and seek alternatives)
The problem is the moat. The moat is money.
The problem is the moat. The moat is money.
bullshit as a platform is a new model in 2023...
Yes, but YT seems to be doing a lot of A/B testing so what works for others doesn't mean it works for you.
If I see an ad I just close YT for the rest of the day.
If I see an ad I just close YT for the rest of the day.
I've found that you can also refresh the page until YouTube knows you're just wasting their bandwidth and gives up serving ads for a while, or open the video in Incognito mode where it seems to give you a grace period.
For extra fun, install one browser with Adblock Plus (with acceptable ads disabled) and one with uBlock Origin and swap between them as needed.
For extra fun, install one browser with Adblock Plus (with acceptable ads disabled) and one with uBlock Origin and swap between them as needed.
> If I see an ad I just close YT for the rest of the day.
I'm sure that's exactly the behavior YT wants here.
I'm sure that's exactly the behavior YT wants here.
I should generate some incompressible 4K 60 FPS videos that consist of three hours of randomly generated static and upload them out of spite.
Someone already beat you to it
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/21/youtube-as-infinite-file-sto...
https://hackaday.com/2023/02/21/youtube-as-infinite-file-sto...
I doubt it'd do anything to harm Google. Storage is dirt cheap and Google effectively has endless amounts of money and resources.
I'm not sure if "incompressible" is possible, at least in a way that Google would still consider an annoyance.
It's not, Google's encoding targets bitrate, not quality. If you upload incompressible content, all you get is forcibly compressed artifacts. Makes no difference to them if it's random noise or a high-effort video essay.
Easy to do with ffmpeg/mencoder.
private browsing w/ ad block seems to be working, its only when logged in do i get a warning
They're expanding the testing -- I recently got a warning when in private browsing and not logged in, but I haven't had an ad or warning when logged in (yet).
Love the strategy.
People will leave Youtube once enough bullshit piles on. There is a point. The question is, will Google push it and trigger an exodus? I'm not sitting through ads to watch stuff. I'd rather not watch things at all than watch ads.
Peer to peer networks are still around. Vimeo still exists. Pretty sure DailyMotion and friends also still exist.
PeerTube and other stuff are making it easier for video communities to support themselves.
Eventually the only thing Youtube will be good for is supporting influencers and whatever mainstream media BS is going on.
Peer to peer networks are still around. Vimeo still exists. Pretty sure DailyMotion and friends also still exist.
PeerTube and other stuff are making it easier for video communities to support themselves.
Eventually the only thing Youtube will be good for is supporting influencers and whatever mainstream media BS is going on.
But the people spending time making the content at a quality that’s not a shaky 320p video are not going to those because they rather make money via ads. So the users won’t leave
Most of the people who upload content to YouTube are doing it because of the ads. So many people have managed to become full-time YouTubers because of the revenue sharing from ads. And these people upload the content that we all enjoy watching. It's a virtuous cycle that I don't think can be replicated with PeerTube.
> And these people upload the content that we all enjoy watching.
Maybe you should speak only for yourself. It is possible that most people uploading to youtube do it because of the adds, but there are plenty of people who have other reasons. Most people I watch regularly do not even have enough views to get any add revenue. There are plenty of us who prefer contents that was not created with adds in mind.
Maybe you should speak only for yourself. It is possible that most people uploading to youtube do it because of the adds, but there are plenty of people who have other reasons. Most people I watch regularly do not even have enough views to get any add revenue. There are plenty of us who prefer contents that was not created with adds in mind.
Not speaking just for myself, there are millions of us who watch and subscribe to YouTube channels to support the creators. I would argue that you're in the niche if you're only watching content from creators that do not want to grow their channel or earn any revenue from it.
I don't understand this viewpoint. There are plenty of us who find YouTube useful and willing to pay for the service. I'm not as sure as you are that an exodus will happen.
I’d also be willing to pay for YouTube, if it ever splits from Google.
Definitely not giving Google any money.
Definitely not giving Google any money.
The same kind of folks who refused to accept the reality of MP3 and punted Ogg Vorbis.
Is it really worth $13.99 to die on - nope it is not.
Is it really worth $13.99 to die on - nope it is not.
That's $13.99/mo, so it's $168/yr or so. I don't even spend that much on games every year. Youtube is stupid if they think I'll pay $14/mo for access to anything.
But how much you spend eating out/DoorDash/Uber Eats in a month ???.
You are mistaken. I may be on the Orange Site, but I am in fact not an entrepreneur or a techbro pulling $100+K/yr. I'm not rich enough to waste money on delivery services.
I recently got mad that the Wendy's biggy bag went to $7 and eat out less because I'm not paying $10+ for a single meal unless it's something I can't (easily) make at home. You can't get Subway for less than $12, and it's a fucking sandwich.
Most of my frivolous spending is on caffeine and THC. If I manage to cut those two out I'd save a bunch but then what would I have fun with? :(
I recently got mad that the Wendy's biggy bag went to $7 and eat out less because I'm not paying $10+ for a single meal unless it's something I can't (easily) make at home. You can't get Subway for less than $12, and it's a fucking sandwich.
Most of my frivolous spending is on caffeine and THC. If I manage to cut those two out I'd save a bunch but then what would I have fun with? :(
When we switched to WFH during Covid I bought a bean expresso machine as a Nespresso pods really did not do it for me - saved a fuckton of money - now I just need to get an icemaker for making iced coffee in summer.
It has been a decade since we had a TV in our household - it just laptops, tablets, phones and a PS5 for my gamer kid - so it's just Spotify/Youtube for them plus TikTok for downtime.
I rarely watch movies - think Spiderman No Way Home was the last one.
It has been a decade since we had a TV in our household - it just laptops, tablets, phones and a PS5 for my gamer kid - so it's just Spotify/Youtube for them plus TikTok for downtime.
I rarely watch movies - think Spiderman No Way Home was the last one.
If you can afford it after cutting those two out, YouTube.
What's your local price for weed? Is the hours of entertainment from YouTube not worth a joint or whatever?
What's your local price for weed? Is the hours of entertainment from YouTube not worth a joint or whatever?
No, not really. I don't use Youtube as much as other people. I'm not getting "hours of entertainment" out of it. I don't check out what's recommended to me, I don't follow any influencers or monetized channels, I don't even have a Google account for anything except buying apps on the Play store.
Youtube is a place for me to listen to game OSTs. A weekend with VPN access and the right protocols could make my entire usage of the site obsolete.
Google simply doesn't do anything worthy of my money. Google and all its properties could disappear tomorrow and my personal computing would barely be affected. Same for Microsoft. There are ways to insulate yourself from being treated like a wallet to dip into at will.
Youtube is a place for me to listen to game OSTs. A weekend with VPN access and the right protocols could make my entire usage of the site obsolete.
Google simply doesn't do anything worthy of my money. Google and all its properties could disappear tomorrow and my personal computing would barely be affected. Same for Microsoft. There are ways to insulate yourself from being treated like a wallet to dip into at will.
So why are you fine with what they do?
>People will leave YouTube once enough bullshit piles on
Not convinced. Many watch influencers and monetized channels and they won't leave.
Not convinced. Many watch influencers and monetized channels and they won't leave.
I'm surprised more content creators do not upload their content to other platforms. the video is already made. is yt really the ONLY monetizing platform outthere?
YouTube is the best monetized platform for videos. TikTok is notorious for paying terribly. I don't think Facebook pays much either. You pay Vimeo to host videos on their platform.
The other alternatives like Nebula and Floatplane paywall all viewers, and doesn't seem open to new creators without a viewerbase.
The other alternatives like Nebula and Floatplane paywall all viewers, and doesn't seem open to new creators without a viewerbase.
lol, no.... ppl will continue using it and eventually will start paying or will switch to shortform content on tiktok/ig
Given the amount of incredible content I don't see myself ever leaving YouTube. Instead of complaining about "the bullshit" I simply pay a few shekels a month for premium, which is easily worth it.
I have tried Peer Tube many times. It, to be frank, sucks.
I have tried Peer Tube many times. It, to be frank, sucks.
what i’m reading from these comments: we will do anything, including leaving youtube, but for sure we will not be either watching ads or paying for content.
I can appreciate your point, but there's a broad history of paid services introducing ads, ads getting longer and more abrasive, content people having paid for being disappeared at the whim of the network, algorithms dictating how people are introduced to content or pushed to keep using an app, etc. I don't have much trust that many services do the right thing for subscribers.
A few services I pay for (Spotify, Xero, etc) seem to lock a user in and then push up pricing while adding functionality I have no need for.
Not to mention the split of content across an increasing number of networks. Having to juggle 5-8 paid streaming services, to watch a few 90s films that feel like they should be on all of them, seems rough to me.
A few services I pay for (Spotify, Xero, etc) seem to lock a user in and then push up pricing while adding functionality I have no need for.
Not to mention the split of content across an increasing number of networks. Having to juggle 5-8 paid streaming services, to watch a few 90s films that feel like they should be on all of them, seems rough to me.
I don't see how any of that is an excuse not to pay for youtube. If there is no ad-free version and no alternative products then I get blocking ads, I do too. But when I'm given an option to pay to remove ads, I generally pay.
For websites that give me a popup saying disable adblock or no content, I immediately hit the back button and let them rot in no-view hell.
For websites that give me a popup saying disable adblock or no content, I immediately hit the back button and let them rot in no-view hell.
I'm kind of torn. On one hand, I agree that if you use a service, paying for it so it can continue to be enjoyed by all makes sense. On the other, I'm not sure there's a tech company fighting against my interests as a regular person harder than Google is, and I don't really want to give them money out of principle. Maybe there's some hyperbole in that last sentence but hopefully my point is made at least.
Depending on your age you've either been paying for the service that is youtube with your data and content for your entire life or for at least as long as Youtube has existed. Please don't waste any time feeling bad about Google not getting what they're owed. Trust me, at this point they owe you.
The story is a bit different when it comes to the creators themselves who would get money from those ads. They offer their videos for free, and you have no obligation to support them monetarily, but if there is a youtuber whose content you really want to support there is probably some means already to pay them directly without giving anything to Google.
The story is a bit different when it comes to the creators themselves who would get money from those ads. They offer their videos for free, and you have no obligation to support them monetarily, but if there is a youtuber whose content you really want to support there is probably some means already to pay them directly without giving anything to Google.
There's zero reason to think that people who are unwilling to sit through ads are also unwilling to pay for content. Many people pay content creators directly. They send donations. They buy merch. They even pay for useless shit like emojis just to show their support publicly.
People simply want to choose which creators they support, when, and how, which is entirely their right
People simply want to choose which creators they support, when, and how, which is entirely their right
this also has the massive benefit of sending $0 to Google
Perhaps Google should reassess its business strategy and start monetizing creators, not users. It is literally not our responsibility to develop sound business strategy for billion dollar corpos. They can hire McKinsey for that.
Should that be their right? If somebody is watching a ton of Vincent's videos, but chooses to send donations to Clara that he watches much less, is that fair?
Vincent and Clara's videos are offered for free and there is zero obligation for anyone to pay either of them anything whether it be money, time, attention, or engagement.
If someone who spends less of their time watching Clara's videos chooses to support Clara because they value her content more than Vincent's, or because they feel like Clara needs the money more than Vincent does, or for any other reason that's entirely up to them.
Similarly, it doesn't matter how many of my comments here on HN you read, you don't owe me upvotes, or responses, or donations although I might certainly appreciate them
If someone who spends less of their time watching Clara's videos chooses to support Clara because they value her content more than Vincent's, or because they feel like Clara needs the money more than Vincent does, or for any other reason that's entirely up to them.
Similarly, it doesn't matter how many of my comments here on HN you read, you don't owe me upvotes, or responses, or donations although I might certainly appreciate them
And, likewise, Youtube is free to send the bytes to only the people they want. If they don't want to serve video data to people who use adblocks, it's their right.
You are then free to try to work around it, the same way Youtube is trying to work around your adblocker.
You are then free to try to work around it, the same way Youtube is trying to work around your adblocker.
I'd agree with that, although that doesn't make both activities equivalent either.
Google is being increasingly obnoxious and user-hostile in an effort to get people to pay Google money to stop harassing them and wasting their time by delaying and interrupting the free content they requested with repeated attempts at manipulation, while the people who block ads are just trying to avoid Google's unwanted (and at times harmful) behavior.
Google is being increasingly obnoxious and user-hostile in an effort to get people to pay Google money to stop harassing them and wasting their time by delaying and interrupting the free content they requested with repeated attempts at manipulation, while the people who block ads are just trying to avoid Google's unwanted (and at times harmful) behavior.
Google's bandwidth and storage of those bytes isn't free
Google's bandwidth and storage for the valuable content the public produces and provides to Google for free are more than paid for by the personal data they take from us and use against us at every opportunity. Google has the trillions to prove it. Some subset of youtube viewers depriving them of just one opportunity to exploit our personal information isn't going to hurt them one bit.
Right, equating views or view time with the value something brings is another thing wrong with ad-based funding. There's a lot of media that I am happy to watch as long as it is free but would also be happy to replace with other activities if it was not. Meanwhile there are other creators that I am freely choosing to pay just to see them keep creating.
I think the current YT Premium model is more fair, creators get paid more the more you watch them. I'm glad it works like this instead of pandering to donations. Anywhere I've looked, I've seen the donations model been a complete failure. Usually I am the only person or one of less than 10 that donates to an OSS project with thousands and thousands of users. People just don't donate to things that are important and useful to them. Likewise with YouTube, nobody will donate to well-made instructional videos or original news reporting, but they will donate to e-girls or gamers because they want to feel associated with those people. So I'm glad that creators are not forced to depend on donations.
> I think the current YT Premium model is more fair
I don't think it is entirely fair to invent problems for people and then demand payment from them to stop getting in their way. That said, I don't object to Google providing people with the option of giving their money to Google either, I just don't think they need the strong arm tactics.
> Likewise with YouTube, nobody will donate to well-made instructional videos or original news reporting
There are countless examples to prove you wrong. Many people on youtube doing original news reporting and providing instructional videos get donations and many earn their living entirely from money they made on youtube (either from those people who choose to donate their money directly, or those who pay Google for Premium, or those who choose to allow themselves to be subjected to ads).
I don't think it is entirely fair to invent problems for people and then demand payment from them to stop getting in their way. That said, I don't object to Google providing people with the option of giving their money to Google either, I just don't think they need the strong arm tactics.
> Likewise with YouTube, nobody will donate to well-made instructional videos or original news reporting
There are countless examples to prove you wrong. Many people on youtube doing original news reporting and providing instructional videos get donations and many earn their living entirely from money they made on youtube (either from those people who choose to donate their money directly, or those who pay Google for Premium, or those who choose to allow themselves to be subjected to ads).
After running the platform at a loss over over a decade until their competitors evaporated. And then refusing to sell the solution to the invented problems without bundling it with an unrelated service in another market they want a foothold in...you know, just anticompetitive behavior.
> There are countless examples to prove you wrong.
I think there are many more examples proving me right. In my estimate, about 1 in 750 to 1 in 1000 subscribers will donate to a video creator. That's "nobody". If you look at your favourite channels and compare numbers of subscribers with numbers of Patreon sponsors, I think you will see similar numbers.
It's not only YouTube, it's almost everything on the internet. Then people here complain about diminishing quality of the stuff online... Well, people who make that stuff need to eat. If they can't support themselves with producing quality content, they will do something else and that content will not be made. It will not exist. At least YouTube is a way that enables a lot of high quality content to exist. I know hackers think that these creators should go to hell if they don't accept to create their stuff for free, but I side with the creator in this one.
For me, I look forward to the day when YouTube is completely behind a paywall, so that penny pinchers are left to wallow in the filth to save their precious dollars.
This is also why unhealthy slop food is sold everywhere. Most people will happily destroy their own health and keep buying the cheapest crap so they can pinch their precious penny, instead of spending a little more on quality.
But what I've always wondered is what people want to do with that penny that they've pinched for so long?
I think there are many more examples proving me right. In my estimate, about 1 in 750 to 1 in 1000 subscribers will donate to a video creator. That's "nobody". If you look at your favourite channels and compare numbers of subscribers with numbers of Patreon sponsors, I think you will see similar numbers.
It's not only YouTube, it's almost everything on the internet. Then people here complain about diminishing quality of the stuff online... Well, people who make that stuff need to eat. If they can't support themselves with producing quality content, they will do something else and that content will not be made. It will not exist. At least YouTube is a way that enables a lot of high quality content to exist. I know hackers think that these creators should go to hell if they don't accept to create their stuff for free, but I side with the creator in this one.
For me, I look forward to the day when YouTube is completely behind a paywall, so that penny pinchers are left to wallow in the filth to save their precious dollars.
This is also why unhealthy slop food is sold everywhere. Most people will happily destroy their own health and keep buying the cheapest crap so they can pinch their precious penny, instead of spending a little more on quality.
But what I've always wondered is what people want to do with that penny that they've pinched for so long?
I don't wish to be tracked by Google.
If I paid for YouTube Premium then I voluntarily provide even more tracking data to Google. If they offered an ad free tier where you weren't tracked then I would pay for it.
Since Google don't respect people's right to privacy or to watch content ad free I don't pay them and instead use ad blockers locally and pay for a proxy server with ad blocking DNS.
If I paid for YouTube Premium then I voluntarily provide even more tracking data to Google. If they offered an ad free tier where you weren't tracked then I would pay for it.
Since Google don't respect people's right to privacy or to watch content ad free I don't pay them and instead use ad blockers locally and pay for a proxy server with ad blocking DNS.
If you don’t want to be tracked, you have to stop using YouTube. Your ad blocker does nothing to prevent tracking - Google can see what you’re doing because it’s their servers. It only helps on other third-party sites.
The problem is, how these things sometimes go is: you are fed up of ads so you start paying them. Then a year or two later you get ads as a paying user too. There’s a long history of paid products doing this. Look at Windows, Smart TVs, etc…
In my case I was fed up with ads and subscribed to the YouTube Premium Lite offering 2 years ago, in September I got an email with:
> Thank you for being one of our first Premium Lite members.
> We’re writing to let you know that after October 25, 2023, we will no longer offer your version of Premium Lite.
And so I refused to be nudged into a more expensive subscription, YT didn't give me any more information why that subscription wasn't being offered so fuck them, I will use ad blockers for as long as they work.
> Thank you for being one of our first Premium Lite members.
> We’re writing to let you know that after October 25, 2023, we will no longer offer your version of Premium Lite.
And so I refused to be nudged into a more expensive subscription, YT didn't give me any more information why that subscription wasn't being offered so fuck them, I will use ad blockers for as long as they work.
I've been a paying YouTube user since it was called YouTube Red (remember that? lol) in 2014 and they haven't shown any sign of introducing ads. So that's almost a decade, versus your "year or two".
Then stop paying in 2 years, meanwhile you will have ad free videos. Problem solved.
Spoken like someone from the universe where paid services do not still show ads and engage in countless other user-hostile behavior.
does anyone know of any services that do this?
Paid services that still show ads? Cable, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video, etc.
i never got any ads on netflix, disney+, prime video or youtube premium.
I assume they mean ads for other shows on the same platform(at least Netflix and Prime Video do this), which in my experience not everyone sees as "ads" in that sense(I still do myself).
* Some of these platforms have cheaper tiers that are ad-supported.
* All of these platforms favor algorithmic recommendations (which are ads) over your personal content queue.
* A lot of content on Prime forces you to watch an ad of new Prime content before your show starts.
* Some of these platforms have auto-playing previews that distract you while you are navigating. Sometimes you can disable them, sometimes you can't. Sometimes the setting resets itself. These are ads.
* All of these platforms favor algorithmic recommendations (which are ads) over your personal content queue.
* A lot of content on Prime forces you to watch an ad of new Prime content before your show starts.
* Some of these platforms have auto-playing previews that distract you while you are navigating. Sometimes you can disable them, sometimes you can't. Sometimes the setting resets itself. These are ads.
Good points about algorithm and auto play.
I'd add that if one has (permanent) control of the recommendation and auto playing then they're less like ads and more tools. Especially if they are opt in.
I'd add that if one has (permanent) control of the recommendation and auto playing then they're less like ads and more tools. Especially if they are opt in.
Then you're paying at a higher tier.
Incorrect.
Surely you could provide at least some details? Have you personally seen ads on those services, for example?
I have seen ads on those services when paying for their cheapest paid tier.
Yes, if you pick the ad supported discount you see ads. Choosing to get a discount is not the same as the original claim that you’d still get ads even if you paid.
Yet one is still paying fiat and getting ads. And for Prime I always saw ads no matter how much I paid. Perhaps that's changing with their new tier.
YouTube as well, from the end-user perspective. I understand that there is a distinction between sponsor segments and preroll/midroll ads, but at the end of the day it’s all ads and paying for YouTube doesn’t get rid of all the ads.
That’s due to ad blocking: it doesn’t make creators not want to make rent, it just means more ads in the content and things like sponsor products being woven into the content. Worse for everyone but people are going to chase money if their income declines.
I have no shame for my selfishness in this case
> but for sure we will not be either watching ads or paying for content.
The quality and quantity of ads is the problem. Getting blasted with Uber Eats ads all the time (I had a two week streak on my tablet for this crap) without any ability to tell Youtube that, no fuck no I will never eat at Uber Eats and their jingle is annoying the fuck out of me, absolutely sucks. And no I don't want to be interrupted every five minutes with an ad break that completely breaks the flow of the video, and especially not right after coming out of a 2 minute "sponsor" block shilling NordVPN, Athletic fucking Greens, Aura or AirUp.
In contrast, regular TV ads are at least placed in joint blocks that leave you enough time to go to a loo and then have 20-30 minutes of uninterrupted video. Oh, and there also won't be low-quality ads for Evony or whatever other free-to-play whale hunter games on TV either.
The quality and quantity of ads is the problem. Getting blasted with Uber Eats ads all the time (I had a two week streak on my tablet for this crap) without any ability to tell Youtube that, no fuck no I will never eat at Uber Eats and their jingle is annoying the fuck out of me, absolutely sucks. And no I don't want to be interrupted every five minutes with an ad break that completely breaks the flow of the video, and especially not right after coming out of a 2 minute "sponsor" block shilling NordVPN, Athletic fucking Greens, Aura or AirUp.
In contrast, regular TV ads are at least placed in joint blocks that leave you enough time to go to a loo and then have 20-30 minutes of uninterrupted video. Oh, and there also won't be low-quality ads for Evony or whatever other free-to-play whale hunter games on TV either.
i pay for premium. But funny thing, this will not disable the tracking, so I still use the ublock. I've also had problems when visiting my parents in another country and background play was blocked bc yt premium was not available there, even if i was a paying customer. At that time I was using yt in firefox mobile with background play. I also still get sponsored ads and need to use the sponsorblock extension, that does not work for yt mobile app. In other words paying premium solves a small subset of problems and gives a worse experience compared to ppl that use ublock+sponsorblock in the browser
uBlock does not prevent tracking. The only way to keep Google from tracking you is to stop connecting to Google’s servers.
It prevents some of it, better than nothing
It doesn’t prevent Google from tracking you in any way. The most you could say is that if YouTube is loading third-party ad network it’ll prevent those services from tracking you, but that’s not especially useful when Google can resell your data to the same company.
if it doesn't prevent, why it includes trackers that are blocked in this case? Not including them is easier than including & maintaining, no?
They came first for the non-paid viewers, and I didn't speak up because I pay for Premium...
(Point being people paying for premium are also mad at these tactics)
(Point being people paying for premium are also mad at these tactics)
Watching ads is like going to the bathroom without washing your hands after. It's simply bad hygiene, and future generations will hopefully look back with disgust at how putrid our current society is for allowing our minds to be polluted for thousandths of a penny.
I don't even get thousandths of a penny for viewing ads - someone else does.
You didn't have to pay, or paid less, for storage in the nearest POP and bandwidth -- in exchange for viewing as ads.
in due time you'll be paying both for content and watch ads, as is the norm now on more and more platforms.
It's an absolute category error to think you can haggle with for profit corporations worth trillions about when they've extracted enough value from you.
You ever hear the one about the missionary who tried to negotiate with the tiger? He told the tiger he could eat most of him, but he had to stop when he got to his head
It's an absolute category error to think you can haggle with for profit corporations worth trillions about when they've extracted enough value from you.
You ever hear the one about the missionary who tried to negotiate with the tiger? He told the tiger he could eat most of him, but he had to stop when he got to his head
My current work-around is https://deturl.com/ and then click 'clean viewer'. Changing a video URL from www.youtube.com to www.pwnyoutube.com redirects there. Example https://www.pwnyoutube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Simply staying logged out of YouTube is still working for me (with Firefox and uBlock Origin)
I use an extension to redirect youtube URLs to an invidious instance (https://yewtu.be/), it works okay.
I'm using this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/redirector/ I've set it up to only redirect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\* so I can still use the regular YouTube UI for browsing videos. This invidious instance feels surprisingly snappy, perhaps even faster than the 'native' YouTube player.
I'm using this one: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/redirector/ I've set it up to only redirect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\* so I can still use the regular YouTube UI for browsing videos. This invidious instance feels surprisingly snappy, perhaps even faster than the 'native' YouTube player.
Does YouTube show ads in the embedded player? Wouldn't it be easy to make an extension where you can click a button in YouTube when an ad pops up, and it moves the video into an embedded player on a localhost domain? (Or even the extension's local chrome-extension:// domain)
I guess YouTube could always block that domain from embedding videos, but if the extension allowed the user to set a custom domain from /etc/hosts, I'm not sure Google could stop it unless they forbid embedding on hosts that resolve to loopback address.
I guess YouTube could always block that domain from embedding videos, but if the extension allowed the user to set a custom domain from /etc/hosts, I'm not sure Google could stop it unless they forbid embedding on hosts that resolve to loopback address.
A lot of videos on Youtube aren't embeddable.
or just create a new bookmark with:
javascript:void(location.href='https://deturl.com/play.php?v='+location.href.split('=')[1])
when you're on a yt video click it and it will redirect using the id
javascript:void(location.href='https://deturl.com/play.php?v='+location.href.split('=')[1])
when you're on a yt video click it and it will redirect using the id
Very misleading.
It downloads a text file maintained by someone at a repository that lists all uBO YouTube Fixes, and compare it to the latest YouTube JS files. Not all JS updates contain anti-adblock codes, so what this website shows is pretty misleading.
It downloads a text file maintained by someone at a repository that lists all uBO YouTube Fixes, and compare it to the latest YouTube JS files. Not all JS updates contain anti-adblock codes, so what this website shows is pretty misleading.
Yes, but I assume people would typically get to this website via the megathread [0] which says the same as you:
> If it's red, it means we're either still working on a fix or the latest script didn't defeat our current filters.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/184fivk/youtu...
> If it's red, it means we're either still working on a fix or the latest script didn't defeat our current filters.
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/184fivk/youtu...
Newpipe also works great on Android! Haven't seen an ad since I installed it, and you can also download videos and play while minimized.
Newpipe doesn't work well in my experience, and crashes often. Firefox Mobile + uBlock O is better.
On Android I watch YouTube in MS Edge and enable the builtin adblocker. Works like a charm!
Won't using such third-party clients cause your account to get flagged?
It does not have a login functionality. It let's you subscribe to channels without an account.
You'd be a fool to log in.
I've never had an issue with Firefox
Also a Firefox user.
The internet is unbearable with ads. If a browser doesn't filter ads well it's unsuitable for use in 2023. If Chrome can't block YouTube ads anymore, then it's just not even a contender. The normies tend to lag a little with these things, but it won't be long before "Firefox is the one that works on YouTube" is common tech trivia.
The internet is unbearable with ads. If a browser doesn't filter ads well it's unsuitable for use in 2023. If Chrome can't block YouTube ads anymore, then it's just not even a contender. The normies tend to lag a little with these things, but it won't be long before "Firefox is the one that works on YouTube" is common tech trivia.
Exactly, this is what killed internet explorer as well. Back in the day when popups and pop unders were still a thing, internet explorer provided an utterly miserable browsing experience that was the default. And then people started installing Firefox and Chrome to get a better experience. And then internet explorer market share started on a long, unstoppable slide down to becoming utterly irrelevant. MS tried to fix it later but it amounted to too little and too late.
Now Google is repeating Microsoft's mistakes here. The more miserable the ad experience, the stronger the incentive to do something about that. And when the solution is "Install Firefox, add uBlock Origin, Tada!", there are just going to be a lot of people that will figure out how to never see ads again. Firefox works on mobile as well and runs Youtube without ads just fine there. Think about that next time you are forced to watch an ad in the Youtube app on your phone.
The irony with Youtube is that ads are just a part of the revenue stream. They also get a revenue share on sponsoring deals and a few other things. Which for most youtubers is actually their main income stream. Ads are just the cherry on the cake. Which is why Google can't just kill off browser support or move everything to premium/paid accounts. They'd lose a lot of their viewers and revenue. And as a consequence, potentially some of their content creators even. Google is completely dependent on external content providers and viewers keeping the revenue going. No content, no views, no revenue. That's why they have to keep the platform such that it maximizes exposure for good videos.
Now Google is repeating Microsoft's mistakes here. The more miserable the ad experience, the stronger the incentive to do something about that. And when the solution is "Install Firefox, add uBlock Origin, Tada!", there are just going to be a lot of people that will figure out how to never see ads again. Firefox works on mobile as well and runs Youtube without ads just fine there. Think about that next time you are forced to watch an ad in the Youtube app on your phone.
The irony with Youtube is that ads are just a part of the revenue stream. They also get a revenue share on sponsoring deals and a few other things. Which for most youtubers is actually their main income stream. Ads are just the cherry on the cake. Which is why Google can't just kill off browser support or move everything to premium/paid accounts. They'd lose a lot of their viewers and revenue. And as a consequence, potentially some of their content creators even. Google is completely dependent on external content providers and viewers keeping the revenue going. No content, no views, no revenue. That's why they have to keep the platform such that it maximizes exposure for good videos.
I wish you were right but I doubt you are. Yes, the internet is absolutely unbearable with ads -- to you and me. But so many people suffer in silence and consider ads to be a minor annoyance that's simply inevitable.
Same with Android TV: most people accept the default launcher that serves ads and pushes content constantly. It takes some work to change the default launcher, but people won't even try. They accept it.
I pray every day that Manifest V3 will be the beginning of the end for Chrome, because it cripples ad blocking in an unacceptable way. But I very much doubt it will happen.
Same with Android TV: most people accept the default launcher that serves ads and pushes content constantly. It takes some work to change the default launcher, but people won't even try. They accept it.
I pray every day that Manifest V3 will be the beginning of the end for Chrome, because it cripples ad blocking in an unacceptable way. But I very much doubt it will happen.
it’s funny you think google would just let that happen.
Google isn't one thing. It's an organization made up of individuals, with salaries and bonuses, and stock grants, and other incentive structures. It's entirely possible that those individuals, narrowly in the pursuit of those things, could squander something like browser market share, in exchange for dollars per view on youtube, or some other metric defined in an OKR.
Dollars per view on YouTube, with blocked ads?
Firefox has a better extension API and uBlock Origin is able to do more to block ads than it can on Chrome.
I've never gotten ads on Youtube with Firefox nor my Chromium-based browser. Maybe they didn't roll the adblocker-blocker out to everyone.
The changes to Chrome do not happen until this summer. Until then uBlock Origin is effectively equal on both browsers.
I use Firefox with uBlock Origin and did have seen the warnings from Youtube about disabling the ad-blocker or having only so many videos left to watch.
The blocking per se works.
The blocking per se works.
Firefox doesn't give me issues while logged out. But I've been blocked whilst logged in. Usually a uBlock update is available or I clear my caches and that fixes it.
I like being logged in because I like to track what I've watched. So it's annoying to lose that when logging out. It'd be nice to have an extension that provides watch history independently of YouTube, so that I don't need to login.
I like being logged in because I like to track what I've watched. So it's annoying to lose that when logging out. It'd be nice to have an extension that provides watch history independently of YouTube, so that I don't need to login.
I'm the opposite. I'm happy to pay for premium when logged in, but I don't like the echo chamber being built so I prefer to watch logged out, in which case I'd get ads without the adblocks
(As a point of pride, lest I be intrepteted as a corporate simp, I should add that this is an account I use entirely for leisure browsing and that's disconnected from the rest of my identity. I created it with Apple HideMyEmail and avoided supplying any phone number by setting up 2fa with a virtual WebAuthn device so I could setup a TOTP code, then generated that and saved it to my psssord manager.)
You don't have to run WebAuth on a VPS, you can use it on your PC/Mac or even on your phone..!
Clear cookies and site data for YT and login again.
Same, and I watch a lot of Youtube. I've never even seen the warning yet. My theory so far is that it's because I'm on Linux and they're guessing Linux-users tend to do whatever they can to avoid watching ads anyway so we're not included in their testing (yet).
That being said I do get quite some ads on Twitch(and I know there's solutions to this, but they're separate from uBlock origin and I have to keep updating them cause they keep breaking so I stop caring sometimes). The way I solve it there is to just have 2 different streams open in 2 different tabs, one of them muted, as soon as ads start I switch to the different stream.
That being said I do get quite some ads on Twitch(and I know there's solutions to this, but they're separate from uBlock origin and I have to keep updating them cause they keep breaking so I stop caring sometimes). The way I solve it there is to just have 2 different streams open in 2 different tabs, one of them muted, as soon as ads start I switch to the different stream.
I haven't had issues with Chrome, either. That is not what this site is about. It is simply showing if the version of the script loaded on YouTube is the same version of the script uBlock's filters are designed to target. Any issues here affect all browsers equally.
I’ll also chime in and confirm I get no ads with Firefox. My understanding is that uBlock Origin is weaker on Chrome so there’s no reason to use it if you’re serious about ad-blocking.
Me too, no problem with Firefox.
Very likely probing user client state to detect ad-blockers without consent is illegal in EU law.
Directive 2002/58/EC legal text: 3. Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user.
Alexander Hanff has been fighting the fight to make this a reality and recognized by courts.
Mainstream media coverage of the story: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/7/23950513/youtube-ad-block...
Not only it is illegal, it's also not at all how HTTP was designed to work. If a business use case makes it so that the system doesn't want to serve a request, the server can (and should) return one of 4xx error messages. Returning with OK and then doing invasive malware-esque data mining is not A-OK.
Directive 2002/58/EC legal text: 3. Member States shall ensure that the use of electronic communications networks to store information or to gain access to information stored in the terminal equipment of a subscriber or user is only allowed on condition that the subscriber or user concerned is provided with clear and comprehensive information in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC, inter alia about the purposes of the processing, and is offered the right to refuse such processing by the data controller. This shall not prevent any technical storage or access for the sole purpose of carrying out or facilitating the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network, or as strictly necessary in order to provide an information society service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user.
Alexander Hanff has been fighting the fight to make this a reality and recognized by courts.
Mainstream media coverage of the story: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/7/23950513/youtube-ad-block...
Not only it is illegal, it's also not at all how HTTP was designed to work. If a business use case makes it so that the system doesn't want to serve a request, the server can (and should) return one of 4xx error messages. Returning with OK and then doing invasive malware-esque data mining is not A-OK.
Pissing of the developer community has to be the equivalent of suicide by cop in the world of software.
Who sits in a meeting and pushes this? "We could up our viewership by starting a war with a niche browser primarily used by open source hackers.." Does that sound foolish only in my head?
Who sits in a meeting and pushes this? "We could up our viewership by starting a war with a niche browser primarily used by open source hackers.." Does that sound foolish only in my head?
We probably make up less than 0.1% of users, so yeah it doesn't matter
The change has been I just dl stuff - less stuff.
I don't browse, don't comment, don't vote. Don't share casually.
YT and other corporates cutting their nose off to spite their face?
If the wind changes on some ideological, political, social points - Youtube can become about as popular and relevant as vinyl records, CD's. And they won't notice it, until long after the process is irreversible.
I don't browse, don't comment, don't vote. Don't share casually.
YT and other corporates cutting their nose off to spite their face?
If the wind changes on some ideological, political, social points - Youtube can become about as popular and relevant as vinyl records, CD's. And they won't notice it, until long after the process is irreversible.
The endless arms race.
Reminds me of the time I experimented with running Synology OS on a PC or pirated music - it became such a hassle waiting for new patches or fixing my MP3 collection that it was just easier to pay for a license to UnRaid and Spotify move on with my life.
The value my family gets out Youtube > Netflix atm so I have no qualms about paying.
Reminds me of the time I experimented with running Synology OS on a PC or pirated music - it became such a hassle waiting for new patches or fixing my MP3 collection that it was just easier to pay for a license to UnRaid and Spotify move on with my life.
The value my family gets out Youtube > Netflix atm so I have no qualms about paying.
Forget browsers; I could use an ad-free Youtube app for Android TV that has voice search.
SmartTube is good for this. It needs to be installed by the APK and updated manually but that’s the only friction I’ve encountered. Been using for around a year I’d say.
It even has SponsorBlock built in, so it can be configured to skip things like intros, recaps, or sponsor segments.
It even has SponsorBlock built in, so it can be configured to skip things like intros, recaps, or sponsor segments.
I looked at that before. It doesn't have voice search out of the box. You have to uninstall Youtube, root the device and fiddle with adb, to install some bridge application or something.
It could be a good reason to switch to Google's Android box device (Chromecast with Google TV) where this is supposedly simpler.
It could be a good reason to switch to Google's Android box device (Chromecast with Google TV) where this is supposedly simpler.
I haven't seen an ad on Youtube for as long as adblock/ublock existed.
Nothing has changed yet. Firefox/ubuntu and firefox/android. Logged in or logged off - no difference.
Right now (2023-12-07 evening) I get a popup that advises me that ad blockers are not allowed. In the upper right corner there is a timer that turns to a check mark so I can dismiss the popup and watch my video.
Thing is, I've watched YT on my phone and it seems like the ads take a lot longer to stream than the time before I can dismiss the popup. The popup is a minor annoyance but better than a couple ads.
Thing is, I've watched YT on my phone and it seems like the ads take a lot longer to stream than the time before I can dismiss the popup. The popup is a minor annoyance but better than a couple ads.
Can confirm, brave blocks it too.
Possibly unrelated, but youtube videos stopped playing on Safari on my iPhone yesterday. Previously, Youtube would play via Safari, and the ads wouldn't. This was apparently a bug / unimplemented feature. I do have AdGuard (non-premium) on my phone as well as overly-aggressive lists on my Pihole, so it's possible there's something new going on there. It looks like free Youtube may be coming to an end.
I have the same setup (sans the Pihole since i have decent 5G but shitty wifi where I' sitting) and it still works. You might have to refresh the video page sometimes though before it plays.
No dice here, however I have not tried to troubleshoot my setup. I also know Youtube is A/B testing, so we might not be operating under the same conditions from the Youtube side.
I just stopped using Youtube since the first time they tried
anti-adblock and now only watch linked videos if at all.
I don't trust a platform that threatens its users.
And of course, all those extensions/scripts to make Youtube usable
are now disabled, to show how it really looks to discourage its use.
I use uBlock Origin on PC and MS Edge on mobile for blocking ads. Both work great for blocking YouTube ads.
I think I saw the ominous message from Google once prior to origin updating their stuff and me clearing cookies afterwards. FF on desktop. Also no issues on Brave.
I got the anti adblock youtube message a month ago, but since then ublock has been working 100% of the time.
I broke my phone's bootloader over the weekend and I'm quite happy that I've fixed it without watching a single Youtube video... because they were all blocked from playing and I know why I installed the uBlock in the first place.
channel RSS + huginn + ytdl + jellyfin = your own private video feed
an added benefit is there are no recommendations so you can't get sucked in to the algo, nor tracked by it
if you come across a random video you want to watch you can have a bookmarklet to ytdl it to jellyfin
an added benefit is there are no recommendations so you can't get sucked in to the algo, nor tracked by it
if you come across a random video you want to watch you can have a bookmarklet to ytdl it to jellyfin
I’ve been thinking of setting up something like this for my kids. I don’t want them on YouTube, but there’s some content they might enjoy.
Is there documentation somewhere on how to do it well?
Is there documentation somewhere on how to do it well?
Does anyone know if ESR versions are treated differently?
I am using ESR on work laptop and uBlock Origin cannot penetrate anti-adblock banner.
Waterfox is the same, in order to get through it I must open a tab in private mode
Or you could just pay for YouTube Premium and never see another ad again. As a bonus, you get YouTube Music thrown in for free.
Since when does YouTube premium remove sponsored segments? Theres no price you can pay to remove all YouTube ads.
Sure, if they stop ad tracking premium user I’d gladly pay for it.
Not free if you pay for it.
Not the point, but I felt like I had to mention it.
Not the point, but I felt like I had to mention it.
Thanks for posting - Google needs to face serious competition and market penalties for the recent anti-user behavior. I feel that the products that matter at Google are controlled by an extremely distasteful group of people. Looting the users amassed years ago by real innovator engineers.
For example, the real implied free storage in GMail has implicitly been reduced by 80%. Their failure to reduce prices and in fact their price INCREASES are just pure greed on display.
For example, the real implied free storage in GMail has implicitly been reduced by 80%. Their failure to reduce prices and in fact their price INCREASES are just pure greed on display.
How would competition even work? How could any company succeed proving a product to a user base that doesn’t watch ads and doesn’t pay for the service?
Would be like proving an alternative to cater to shoplifters.
Would be like proving an alternative to cater to shoplifters.
Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft. When you're listening to the radio, it's not theft to change the station when ads come up. When you're watching TV, it's not theft to mute the TV and get a drink when ads come up. Youtube has zero moral expectation that people will actually watch the ads it serves. They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story.
Just because it isn't theft doesn't mean they need to be okay with you doing it. If I went to a restaurant and decided I didn't like of the wine they have on their menu, so I went to the store next door and grabbed a bottle of wine, I'd likely be asked to pay a corkage fee. If I refused I'd likely be asked to leave.
Businesses get to define their own rules and if you don't abide by them they're allowed to choose not to do business with you. You either need to agree to their terms of service (no adblock) or you need to take your business else where. They don't owe you anything.
Businesses get to define their own rules and if you don't abide by them they're allowed to choose not to do business with you. You either need to agree to their terms of service (no adblock) or you need to take your business else where. They don't owe you anything.
No, I really don't have to agree to their terms of service. Their website serves me videos when I request them, and then tries to insert ads. I simply decline to load and view the ads. If they don't want to serve me the videos I request, they can do that, but that's not what they're doing.
Your mentality seems to be that a restaurant can offer free meals to anyone who walks in and sits down, then after they're already eating, demand they watch an annoying ad on a screen built into the table, and somehow the diners are morally obligated to watch it instead of just covering it up with their menu. That's BS.
Your mentality seems to be that a restaurant can offer free meals to anyone who walks in and sits down, then after they're already eating, demand they watch an annoying ad on a screen built into the table, and somehow the diners are morally obligated to watch it instead of just covering it up with their menu. That's BS.
> I simply decline to load and view the ads.
That's fine, but then they can also choose to retaliate how they want. It's really weird that everything you're saying seems to boil down to "I don't need to play by their rules, but they need to play by mine."
I'm of the opinion that if you want to bypass their ads that's fine, but you can't get angry when they take action to prevent that.
> Your mentality seems to be that a restaurant can offer free meals to anyone who walks in and sits down, then after they're already eating, demand they watch an annoying ad on a screen built into the table, and somehow the diners are morally obligated to watch it instead of just covering it up with their menu. That's BS.
Yes, that's my attitude. I don't know why it wouldn't be. If a restaurant wanted to make me watch an ad before every single bite, then that's their prerogative. I wouldn't eat there, but if that's what they want to do, then that's their choice.
If YouTube wants to make you watch 10 ads before a 30 second video then more power to them. If they want to take action against people trying to bypass that then good for them. Similar to the example above, I'm not going to use them, but I don't get to dictate how they run their business. If you don't like their actions, then take your business elsewhere. They don't own you anything and vice versa. It's really as simple as that.
That's fine, but then they can also choose to retaliate how they want. It's really weird that everything you're saying seems to boil down to "I don't need to play by their rules, but they need to play by mine."
I'm of the opinion that if you want to bypass their ads that's fine, but you can't get angry when they take action to prevent that.
> Your mentality seems to be that a restaurant can offer free meals to anyone who walks in and sits down, then after they're already eating, demand they watch an annoying ad on a screen built into the table, and somehow the diners are morally obligated to watch it instead of just covering it up with their menu. That's BS.
Yes, that's my attitude. I don't know why it wouldn't be. If a restaurant wanted to make me watch an ad before every single bite, then that's their prerogative. I wouldn't eat there, but if that's what they want to do, then that's their choice.
If YouTube wants to make you watch 10 ads before a 30 second video then more power to them. If they want to take action against people trying to bypass that then good for them. Similar to the example above, I'm not going to use them, but I don't get to dictate how they run their business. If you don't like their actions, then take your business elsewhere. They don't own you anything and vice versa. It's really as simple as that.
shiroiuma(1)
It’s not theft, but they are negative profit users. What competition would start up to collect these users?
It’s more like a restaurant kicking out a group that just wants to sit at a table for free without buying anything.
It’s more like a restaurant kicking out a group that just wants to sit at a table for free without buying anything.
> Let's permanently dispense with this weird notion that blocking ads is theft.
So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth?
The terms of service for YT are: watch ads or pay for premium. This is so that YT can pay their bills (hosting, salaries, cheques to creators).
> They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story.
No they are not. They are providing a service according to certain terms of service. If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service.
So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth?
The terms of service for YT are: watch ads or pay for premium. This is so that YT can pay their bills (hosting, salaries, cheques to creators).
> They're giving a product away for free, and people are consuming it for free; end of story.
No they are not. They are providing a service according to certain terms of service. If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service.
> So what is a better term for unauthorized use of compute and bandwidth?
> If you don't like the terms feel free not to use the service.
If it's unauthorized, why is the server responding with that data? Youtube has a very simple solution if they don't want the data they send to you to be modified at your discretion -- don't send the data. Their servers are perfectly free to respond with some kind of HTTP error code and not serve up the video data. Once they've sent me the bytes, their control over which of said bytes I consume, modify or discard is over.
I never agreed to any terms of service. My browser made a request and their servers responded with some data. If my request alone constitutes accepting a terms of service, I too should be free to include some sort of X-ToS header with my requests that impose similarly onerous terms on the operator of the server I am making the request to, provided they respond with a non-error HTTP code. Like, lets say, for every Youtube video I load, Youtube must provide a full-ride college scholarship to 1000 kids.
If it's unauthorized, why is the server responding with that data? Youtube has a very simple solution if they don't want the data they send to you to be modified at your discretion -- don't send the data. Their servers are perfectly free to respond with some kind of HTTP error code and not serve up the video data. Once they've sent me the bytes, their control over which of said bytes I consume, modify or discard is over.
I never agreed to any terms of service. My browser made a request and their servers responded with some data. If my request alone constitutes accepting a terms of service, I too should be free to include some sort of X-ToS header with my requests that impose similarly onerous terms on the operator of the server I am making the request to, provided they respond with a non-error HTTP code. Like, lets say, for every Youtube video I load, Youtube must provide a full-ride college scholarship to 1000 kids.
I for one have never seen the YouTube terms of service, nor been prompted to agree to them.
The equivalent behavior on YouTube for your analogies would be for you to mute the ad or to browse a different tab while the ad still plays. Removing the ad altogether is very different. TV and radio can’t (last time I checked) tell if you’ve muted the ad, changed the channel, or have walked away. There’s no telemetry they can access that tells them that, so there is no legal course for the ad companies to say “we’re not going to pay you for that ad” because the best the TV and radio companies can do is say “yup we ran it” and there is a guarantee that every person at a minimum had to wait the amount of time the ad takes, and many will likely just endure it. On the other hand, it’s absolutely possible to track ads getting blocked and skipped altogether, and ad companies have legal grounds to say “we won’t pay for that”.
> and many will likely just endure it
And many will change the channel and watch something else in the meantime. Youtube checks that you have clicked away and just waits for you, basically FORCING you to watch the ad. TV and radio don't do that, neither do magazines.
If Youtube was TV, in this analogy every channel has an ad as soon as you open it. Oh, and when you go back to a channel you switched from due to an ad, that very same ad is waiting for you to watch it dutifully.
And many will change the channel and watch something else in the meantime. Youtube checks that you have clicked away and just waits for you, basically FORCING you to watch the ad. TV and radio don't do that, neither do magazines.
If Youtube was TV, in this analogy every channel has an ad as soon as you open it. Oh, and when you go back to a channel you switched from due to an ad, that very same ad is waiting for you to watch it dutifully.
I wasn’t aware they paused ads if you clicked away. That certainly feels like an abuse of browser APIs, and I agree that’s inappropriate behavior.
As for the TV analogy, it’s a paid option which still serves ads. YouTube offers a paid option which does not serve ads. Should they ever try to cross the line of charging money and still serving ads then all bets are off.
As for the TV analogy, it’s a paid option which still serves ads. YouTube offers a paid option which does not serve ads. Should they ever try to cross the line of charging money and still serving ads then all bets are off.
The space of what's possible on the advertising attribution side doesn't change my moral obligations as a member of the audience. If that were the case, anything disrupting any kind of advertising attribution, even if not entirely intentional, could be said to be theft. For example, if I buy land and build a building in between a billboard and the road the billboard's pointed at, am I in some way liable to the billboard company? What about if I pay someone to follow me around with large cardboard panels and block large advertisements out in the world from my line of sight? What if I build a very fancy automated hat with arms which blocks ads in my real life vision (or even on every screen I look at)? I'm not seeing the ads, have I broken some rule?
This whole thing is happening because content makers have become VERY entitled to the system of advertising which pays them; rather than innovate in the space, they're trying to moralize and legalize their way into forcing the audience not to look away. Don't let it happen folks.
To be clear, I'm not saying YT should give things away; I'm saying the mask should come off and they should outright charge money.
This whole thing is happening because content makers have become VERY entitled to the system of advertising which pays them; rather than innovate in the space, they're trying to moralize and legalize their way into forcing the audience not to look away. Don't let it happen folks.
To be clear, I'm not saying YT should give things away; I'm saying the mask should come off and they should outright charge money.
This goes both ways though. If it's not theft to not watch the ads, it's not "anticompetitive" to not serve you the video if they think you're blocking ads. What "competition" are they even blocking? The competitors who are just waiting to jump in and do exascale video hosting for free, forever, to users who bring in no revenue?
Either accept the cat-and-mouse game, pay for YT premium, or stop using YouTube. Complaining that Google is somehow wronging you by not giving you the free video hosting you're entitled to is asinine.
Either accept the cat-and-mouse game, pay for YT premium, or stop using YouTube. Complaining that Google is somehow wronging you by not giving you the free video hosting you're entitled to is asinine.
The competition they are blocking are all the competitors they drove out of business by running youtube at a loss for ages. They're only now putting ads in videos, charging for not-doing-that, blocking ad blockers, and so on, now that they've driven all the competitors after business. Predatory pricing of this nature is a well know old anti-competitive tactic. The only slightly new wrinkle is that they're letting users pay with their time and attention instead of requiring them to pay with dollars.
They should not be allowed to profit from their anti-competitively acquired monopoly, even in ways that their competitors would have if they had not been driven out of business.
They should not be allowed to profit from their anti-competitively acquired monopoly, even in ways that their competitors would have if they had not been driven out of business.
You're pretty badly off on the timelines there.
> They're only now putting ads in videos,
They've been showing ads on videos since 2007, before Google even bought YouTube.
> charging for not-doing-that,
They've been offering that for 8 years, about half the lifetime of YouTube.
> They're only now putting ads in videos,
They've been showing ads on videos since 2007, before Google even bought YouTube.
> charging for not-doing-that,
They've been offering that for 8 years, about half the lifetime of YouTube.
> to users who bring in no revenue?
Oh, sweet summer child, they already have been monetizing their users browsing behavior and selling it to advertisers. It's their main business
> Complaining that Google is somehow wronging you by not giving you the free video hosting you're entitled to is asinine.
Google are using our browsing and video watching data already. That's enough (and has been enough over many years) for them to monetize their service. What they are doing now with the attack on adblockers on Youtube is corporate greed as they simply want MORE monetization.
And what they are doing to adblockers in general with manifest v3 and Privacy Sandbox is simply anti-competitive practices.
> Either accept the cat-and-mouse game, pay for YT premium, or stop using YouTube. And how about no? What's in to you? Working in Youtube and worried your boss can't buy his 5-th Tesla? Understand that there are some people not happy with the enshittification of the internet, and we want to fight for a better one.
> Complaining that Google is somehow wronging you by not giving you the free video hosting you're entitled to is asinine.
Google are using our browsing and video watching data already. That's enough (and has been enough over many years) for them to monetize their service. What they are doing now with the attack on adblockers on Youtube is corporate greed as they simply want MORE monetization.
And what they are doing to adblockers in general with manifest v3 and Privacy Sandbox is simply anti-competitive practices.
> Either accept the cat-and-mouse game, pay for YT premium, or stop using YouTube. And how about no? What's in to you? Working in Youtube and worried your boss can't buy his 5-th Tesla? Understand that there are some people not happy with the enshittification of the internet, and we want to fight for a better one.
> Google are using our browsing and video watching data already.
Why do you think that data is valuable? Because it can better target ads to you. Ads that you then block. Making the data worthless...
Why do you think that data is valuable? Because it can better target ads to you. Ads that you then block. Making the data worthless...
> Why do you think that data is valuable?
If I am not logged in and I have "Do Not Track", it's illegal for them to track my usage for marketing purposes, let alone show me personalized ads.
The only way they are allowed to legally monetize data for marketing purposes is to find other users that don't have do-not-track + opted in for marketing targeting, and show the ads to them.
Additionally, they can (and do) utilize bulk usage data (from many people) by feeding it into their ecosystem. For example, a video about cats being more popular than another will pop up higher on the search rankings when somebody searches for "cat". User "labor"/interest moderates the content on the platform, which makes it more attractive, and increases the overall number and engagement of users. Out of those users there is some % that have opted in for marketing, and can be legally targeted by personalized ads.
The only way they are allowed to legally monetize data for marketing purposes is to find other users that don't have do-not-track + opted in for marketing targeting, and show the ads to them.
Additionally, they can (and do) utilize bulk usage data (from many people) by feeding it into their ecosystem. For example, a video about cats being more popular than another will pop up higher on the search rankings when somebody searches for "cat". User "labor"/interest moderates the content on the platform, which makes it more attractive, and increases the overall number and engagement of users. Out of those users there is some % that have opted in for marketing, and can be legally targeted by personalized ads.
You assume the competition needs to be commercial, but P2P video sharing has been around for a long time. Folks contribute bandwidth for altruistic reasons.
"The government should pay people to make videos and then distribute them for free" in 3...2...1...
Many countries have Public Service Broadcasting.
In Australia there is ABC, SBS, Community Broadcasting Foundation, Channel 31, etc,
In Australia there is ABC, SBS, Community Broadcasting Foundation, Channel 31, etc,
Your stealing analogy is bad and you should feel bad.
What you wrote is like:
"Hey fellow hackers. I am a hacker myself and I totally don't work for Google. Ads are good, mkay?"
Bruh, dunno what planet you live on and how brainwashed you have to be to think blocking ads is theft. It's like getting a fine when there are ads on the radio and you change the station, or ads on the TV and you changing the channel.
It's your device, it's the creator's content, and Youtube facilitates you seeing that content. In return, they can (and very much do) monetize your usage data, your interests, etc, and give some of that value to the creator. That should have been the relationship between creator, service and consumer. However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them.
What they are doing now is motivated by pure corporate greed and desire to squeeze every possible cent out of their dominant position. They can and don't care about your experience, knowing that there is hardly an alternative for you, and that, my friend, is called a monopoly. And wherever there are monopolies, users suffer. So don't sell me the idea that poor poor Google can't make ends meet and need to force feed me 100 ads during one video so they can survive. This is a monopoly saying a big "fuck you" to their users and trying to scalp them by enshittifying their service and forcing you to pay for the "premium".
Forcing you to watch content that you didn't want to and pausing the ad counter while you have clicked away is the TV equivalent of the ADs following you on every channel and not relenting until you have watched them. They have no excuse
"Hey fellow hackers. I am a hacker myself and I totally don't work for Google. Ads are good, mkay?"
Bruh, dunno what planet you live on and how brainwashed you have to be to think blocking ads is theft. It's like getting a fine when there are ads on the radio and you change the station, or ads on the TV and you changing the channel.
It's your device, it's the creator's content, and Youtube facilitates you seeing that content. In return, they can (and very much do) monetize your usage data, your interests, etc, and give some of that value to the creator. That should have been the relationship between creator, service and consumer. However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them.
What they are doing now is motivated by pure corporate greed and desire to squeeze every possible cent out of their dominant position. They can and don't care about your experience, knowing that there is hardly an alternative for you, and that, my friend, is called a monopoly. And wherever there are monopolies, users suffer. So don't sell me the idea that poor poor Google can't make ends meet and need to force feed me 100 ads during one video so they can survive. This is a monopoly saying a big "fuck you" to their users and trying to scalp them by enshittifying their service and forcing you to pay for the "premium".
Forcing you to watch content that you didn't want to and pausing the ad counter while you have clicked away is the TV equivalent of the ADs following you on every channel and not relenting until you have watched them. They have no excuse
> However, monetizing the trove of data they have on you is not enough for them.
How do you think they're monetizing your data? By definition it's not by showing you ads, you're blocking them. Also not by using the data to make their paid service so good that you'll really want to subscribe, since you obviously are entitled to the service for free.
The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point.
How do you think they're monetizing your data? By definition it's not by showing you ads, you're blocking them. Also not by using the data to make their paid service so good that you'll really want to subscribe, since you obviously are entitled to the service for free.
The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point.
> The reality is that your data is worthless, and your use of the service is a liability rather than an asset. And you'll be equally worthless to any competitor, which was the GP's actual point.
I disagree. Bulk usage data is a type of platform moderation which makes certain content more or less popular, and it improves the quality of the platform overall when fed into their algorithms. That's how google search is made as well. That rises the number of users to the platform. Out of that number, some don't mind paying for it, and some don't mind being tracked/showed ads.
In a nutshell, mine and your usage usage/engagement, regardless if we block ads or not, helped them improve heir platform, which resulted in increase in paying users.
I disagree. Bulk usage data is a type of platform moderation which makes certain content more or less popular, and it improves the quality of the platform overall when fed into their algorithms. That's how google search is made as well. That rises the number of users to the platform. Out of that number, some don't mind paying for it, and some don't mind being tracked/showed ads.
In a nutshell, mine and your usage usage/engagement, regardless if we block ads or not, helped them improve heir platform, which resulted in increase in paying users.
Simply find an alternative model. Billboards still exist even though people that don't speak the language they're written in might see them. You can't force people to view things they don't want to, that's a torture technique.
I have been paying for YouTube premium for years now. And they are spamming the shorts feature with almost no way to turn it off on mobile or ignore it anymore. They are pushing me to stop paying for premium. Are they this stupid.
OK but now isn't the ask for a competitor who is okay with having like no ad revenue?
This is really a lazy take, but I’ll engage.
There’s a huge difference between no ads, and unskipable ads shat out every seven minutes, with another two at the start of every video.
Television isn’t even this bad.
There’s a huge difference between no ads, and unskipable ads shat out every seven minutes, with another two at the start of every video.
Television isn’t even this bad.
Television typically runs ~7 minutes of unskippable ads for 23 minutes of content.
Who else except for YouTube pays independent creators? Who else gives a chance to people who are not born into the right connections and families? YouTube at least gives people a chance to reach an audience on their own merits, just as Google search does. YouTube does have large problems, but in the end it is a payment and distribution layer between video creators and their audience.
Well it’s up to the users to pick something else if they don’t like it. Why don’t we all use Vimeo for example?
They are an ad company, their plan was to lure and lock users. They are not the only company using that tactic. Any subscription based service is the same way, or worse because you are tied to the content by paying.
For example PS plus. You spend time in the service and then your subscription runs out and you can’t access or even fully use games you paid for.
What makes google different? Why do users endure the pain?
For example PS plus. You spend time in the service and then your subscription runs out and you can’t access or even fully use games you paid for.
What makes google different? Why do users endure the pain?
[deleted]
I still get black screen and the skip ad button. Sometimes a flash of the ad before the black screen.
Youtube should just include the ads directly in the video file but thats probably too expensive?
Makes it much harder to target ads(unless you generate separate video files for every separate audience).
Is there any way to manually check and update custom filter? In the waiting time, for example.
This Youtube debacle has definitely been the last bullit, HN is officialy dead to me now. I used to come here to read different opinions and voices of reason. I'm not here to read only complain after complain after complain without offering alternatives. Where did the hacker mentality go?
I uBlocked the original adblock-detection popup and haven't looked back since.
at time of writing, this says NO, but according to the text, "uBlock Origin could still work on YouTube. Not all YT updates are targeted against uBO's solutions." so shouldn't it say MAYBE?
Just under that it says
> A different ID doesn't always mean the detection will occur.
So that definitely seems to be the case according to everything except the "NO"
> A different ID doesn't always mean the detection will occur.
So that definitely seems to be the case according to everything except the "NO"
Google is having a tantrum about ads blocker. They should know better.
I don't really see how a business blocking ad blockers is having a tantrum.
That makes about as much sense as saying a store hiring a security guard to reduce theft is having a tantrum.
That makes about as much sense as saying a store hiring a security guard to reduce theft is having a tantrum.
They are giving things away for free with ads attached to them. People who don't like advertisements are removing them without looking at them. They are retaliating by trying to force them to look at the ads or to otherwise mess with them getting the free items in a timely manner in the first place. Well within their rights, I guess, but it still seems like they are throwing a tantrum to me.
> Well within their rights, I guess, but it still seems like they are throwing a tantrum to me.
I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming.
It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.
I still don't see how it has anything to do with a tantrum. A tantrum is someone yelling and screaming because they aren't getting what they want. This is Google getting exactly what it wants, and I don't see any yelling and screaming.
It's just quietly asserting its rights to block adblockers.
Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer? They may have the ability to do so, but that is not necessarily equivalent to a right.
For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "rights"?
For example, what if I had a robot that detected when an ad was being played on youtube, and automatically turned off my monitor and headphones momentarily, turning them back on once the ad was over. Would that violate google's "rights"?
> Does google really have the right to block my control over what is shown or not shown on my computer?
In general? Of course not.
On a webpage they serve to you? Of course they have the right to, to the extent JavaScript makes it possible. What possible legal basis could there be for them not to have that right? With limited exceptions, they have the right to do wherever they want with their webpage code. And there is no legal exception against blocking adblockers.
In general? Of course not.
On a webpage they serve to you? Of course they have the right to, to the extent JavaScript makes it possible. What possible legal basis could there be for them not to have that right? With limited exceptions, they have the right to do wherever they want with their webpage code. And there is no legal exception against blocking adblockers.
You didn't answer my hypothetical. Do they have the right to ensure that I am looking at their ads?
I don't see how they could, I can always look away. In that case, what is the effective difference between that and ad blockers that control what code/images run/display on my computer?
I don't see how they could, I can always look away. In that case, what is the effective difference between that and ad blockers that control what code/images run/display on my computer?
The German gonvernment (or rather the "Federal Office for Information Security") actually recommends to install an ad-blocker. So there's that ;)
https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...
https://www.bsi.bund.de/EN/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...
> They are giving things away for free with ads attached to them.
The are not "giving things away": they have terms of service. The agreement is: pay for premium or watch the ads. (This way they can pay their bills (including employee salaries and the creators that make the content).)
The are not "giving things away": they have terms of service. The agreement is: pay for premium or watch the ads. (This way they can pay their bills (including employee salaries and the creators that make the content).)
I am going to a publicly available web page, that they provide for the purpose of consuming their content, using standard protocols. I'm just filtering some of it out on my end on the computer I own and control. I don't see anything wrong with this, no matter what BS they might try to claim in their TOS.
No, that's not the textual or social contract for how advertising works. If a company starts giving away pizza but stacking tomes of ad flyers on top, it's ok to take those ads, dump them in the garbage, and eat the pizza. That's how advertising has worked on the internet for decades: "yes this content is free, pay no mind to these ads over here." Just cause you found "one weird trick" to get paid doesn't mean you own my time/attention.
Advertisers want more though, and inventory owners have drunk deep from the cash hose for so long that they want to normalize and enforce behavior that we the public have merely put-up-with till now. We as the audience are now being told that we OWE the pizza store our time and eyeballs; throwing away the ad flyer, why, that's STEALING! If you're a moral citizen, you'll sit there and read every line of copy, sing along with every jingle, watch every dancing mascot, otherwise you're a thief. We keep this up, and closing your eyes will soon be a crime.
Advertisers want more though, and inventory owners have drunk deep from the cash hose for so long that they want to normalize and enforce behavior that we the public have merely put-up-with till now. We as the audience are now being told that we OWE the pizza store our time and eyeballs; throwing away the ad flyer, why, that's STEALING! If you're a moral citizen, you'll sit there and read every line of copy, sing along with every jingle, watch every dancing mascot, otherwise you're a thief. We keep this up, and closing your eyes will soon be a crime.
Bad metaphor. No one is stealing anything from YouTube. Meanwhile a tantrum is a display of socially unacceptable behavior because you don’t like something.
Very much a tantrum.
Very much a tantrum.
How is blocking adblockers "socially unacceptable behavior"?
It might frustrate you personally -- the same way it might frustrate you to have to pay money to see a movie at a movie theater -- but I don't see what isn't acceptable about it socially.
It might frustrate you personally -- the same way it might frustrate you to have to pay money to see a movie at a movie theater -- but I don't see what isn't acceptable about it socially.
[deleted]
bandwidth and hosting have associated costs. unlike piracy, which is just creating copies, this is using Google’s electricity to provide you a service without giving anything in return.
Google is always free to stop serving me anything at all if they choose to.
However, once they serve me something and it’s received by my user agent, I will use that user agent however I see fit to parse and display (or not display) that content.
However, once they serve me something and it’s received by my user agent, I will use that user agent however I see fit to parse and display (or not display) that content.
well, that's what's happening now and everyone is whining about it
What? What is happening now?
I’ll rephrase my position: Google is free to ban my IP, require a payment before serving me videos, or whatever else they feel is appropriate to stop me from using their electricity without being compensated appropriately. But if they serve me a page containing a video, I have every right to instruct the software on my device to render that video however I see fit. This in no way is morally or legally comparable to stealing, theft, fraud, or whatever other words people are throwing around.
I’ll rephrase my position: Google is free to ban my IP, require a payment before serving me videos, or whatever else they feel is appropriate to stop me from using their electricity without being compensated appropriately. But if they serve me a page containing a video, I have every right to instruct the software on my device to render that video however I see fit. This in no way is morally or legally comparable to stealing, theft, fraud, or whatever other words people are throwing around.
It costs them even more to also serve me an ad that I will resent and refuse to click on / follow the CTA.
is it stealing if you mute or don't watch the ads without blocking them per se?
It is a tantrum in a way that a store with a lot of cash, that was giving out free clothes until all other clothes went bankrupt, and then raised the prices and hired a security guard, and the security guard could not stop all those people that were used to get the stuff free kind of tantrum!
There is no theft when I use youtube because I was never going to click on ads in the first place.
The value of me watching ads is absolutely zero. (From my point of view in fact, it's negative).
The value of me watching ads is absolutely zero. (From my point of view in fact, it's negative).
What value do you bring to YouTube, especially since YouTube does not make any money from you?
Youtube purports itself to be a free site, so I'm not sure why one would ask this question.
What a strange question. Why does this matter?
If nothing else, platform engagement clearly is a driver for the business model. Comments, shares on other media.
[deleted]
> There is no theft when I use youtube because I was never going to click on ads in the first place.
Advertising works on multiple levels, with direct sales not necessarily being the only acceptable result:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_funnel
Advertising works on multiple levels, with direct sales not necessarily being the only acceptable result:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchase_funnel
However, me not buying something is quite obviously not equivalent to theft.
Besides, I only watch youtube ad-free. If this becomes impossible I will simply stop watching youtube, so, I don't think this strategy will have much effect on me either, at least within the context of youtube.
Besides, I only watch youtube ad-free. If this becomes impossible I will simply stop watching youtube, so, I don't think this strategy will have much effect on me either, at least within the context of youtube.
> not looking at ads is theft
never gets old
never gets old
And they respond in the most predictable way: enshittifying the experience more and more so that more users will employ adblockers or leave. Nobody needed adblockers when ads weren't abusive, it took years for them to become as such so that someone created the first adblocker. There is a line separating ads that are acceptable if not interesting when unobtrusive and carefully targeted, from the load of crap they shovel at our face. Unfortunately that's how the system is built: not just making profits but maximizing them, which can't scale indefinitely, and the ever growing advertising that ruins both platforms and content value is just another warning that this system is broken from its roots.
[deleted]
I wouldn't mind paying Google, but there is one thing Google does that really infuriates me: they want both my personal data and my money.
This is absolute flagrant greediness that I won't tolerate. Either stop collecting my personal data completely OR take my money. You can't have both.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the slightest they don't collect my personal data when I'm paying them. I find it difficult to trust any of their promises due to their poor reputation.
This is absolute flagrant greediness that I won't tolerate. Either stop collecting my personal data completely OR take my money. You can't have both.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe in the slightest they don't collect my personal data when I'm paying them. I find it difficult to trust any of their promises due to their poor reputation.
Works for me.
I feel like no one is really saying it in this discussion, but paying the $9 a month or whatever for YouTube Premium makes this whole thing a non-issue, and comes with perks like being able to download videos to your device (great for flying) and to play things in the background.
No one is saying this because people who intentionally use ublock are doing it to not support youtube.
Logging in means random videos I check from various corners of the internet starts shaping the recommendation algo. Many of these are extremely deep and vicious traps (eg my most recent one was misery porn).
Youtube premium does not works for incognito mode. This requires careful, and manual curation of my "history" page.
No thank you.
Youtube premium does not works for incognito mode. This requires careful, and manual curation of my "history" page.
No thank you.
Wait...are you actually getting useful recommendations from the not-logged-in recommendation algorithm?
Whenever I've use YouTube not logged in the recommendations have been pretty worthless.
Whenever I've use YouTube not logged in the recommendations have been pretty worthless.
Not the person you asked, but yes. My not-logged-in recommendations are scarily great. They’re excellent (better than my logged-in recommendations, as of my last check) on the non-incognito browser on one machine, and merely very good on the incognito browser on the other machine.
This and spotify are the two monthly expenses I cannot live without. YT Premium is soooo worth it.
And yes, I realize I can play music via the same subscription but I have been using Spotify since before it existed outside Sweden and really enjoy it. I will not be leaving any time soon.
And yes, I realize I can play music via the same subscription but I have been using Spotify since before it existed outside Sweden and really enjoy it. I will not be leaving any time soon.
They are unfortunately raising it to $14/mo. But I'll keep paying because I can't stand the YouTube ads, and it comes with YouTube Music so I don't need to pay for Spotify or some other music service.
It’s funny that you mention “play[ing] things in the background” as a perk, because for me, artificially paywalling a feature on mobile devices that you get for free on every computer is a great way to get me not to pay for your service.
they're not saying it because microeconomic pressures result in a system where YouTube is unenjoyable or expensive.
As humans, we can organize this system to be an enjoyable, free tool, and Google won't be terribly affected by the minor loss in profits
but instead,
the pressures of capitalism drive innovation to optimize for an undesirable outcome.
this isn't negative commentary on capitalism itself, but a roundabout way of saying Google is fucking greedy, I'm a student, and nobody should ever have to pay 9 bucks for youtube.
The good news is you don't have to pay 9 bucks for youtube
>As humans, we...
"We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?
"We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?
Those other guys have been around for longer than the concept of advertising. It is human nature to create and share those creations.
There's a lot of double think around here that resolves around the call to do your bit and support Google's model. I should know better but I still find it breathtaking. Capitalism's benefits are brought to fruition through competition, and hard nosed decisions on all sides. I was raised by a capitalist believer. That is what he instilled in me. The willingness of the consumer to exercise choice is paramount. As such, I rail against the fatalism that we must pay, and not find ways to not pay.
Good grief, no. That 9$ is urgently required in order to purchase healthy food at spiralling prices, and to pay for the requirements for healthy activities.
Google? The last people i am concerned about. Content makers, that's an interesting story. SV and others rips them off, and crushes the business models that supported their livelyhoods. But now I have to be concerned about the youtube content makers?
Think about it. People do things without recompense all the time. It's called joy, or something. It is a fact. If that's not possible, they could investigate setting up patreons.
What YT have somehow done is repackage their business model in vivo in your head. It's not Yt's business model at all. It is a moral obligation to creators.
The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course.
Consumers with a moral concern for the world rather than just passing emotional whims are supposed to allow themselves to recognise how hard nosed the investors and executives are.
This is all business. All transactions. Forget the selling of attention and data. Your presence and interest in a thing is advertising, and affirms it as something of value.
I'm respectful of the desire to support people who create things of value for us, but it's absolutely vital to realise that one of life's great joys is doing so for free.
Frankly sometimes when I feel there's also an air of desperation around this discussion. If the transition from free to paid service can't be normalised, a lot of people on here would seem to stand to lose or face uncertainty.
I wish I could impart upon people there is a great need to frequently revisit and exploring our moral, ethical social contracts - and to realise how flimsy our justifications are, and how limited we are in being able to concieve of the realities involve. There's something childlike about it. It's hard to know when just to leave that alone, as entire point is that life might not offer any certainty whatsoever as to the 'goodness' inherent in the act or any protection against it unwittingly - in the final analysis - proving to be a terrible thing for all involved, if only we understood (but we can't).
Basically... uhhh.... we could stand to be hard nosed consumers. Not cynical, but perhaps not avoiding the "realist" view that there are huge and unavoidable ambiguities and contradictions in everything we are engaging with, and pretending otherwise is not about being a wise adult, it's about silly and childish ideas such as good and evil.
I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.
Good grief, no. That 9$ is urgently required in order to purchase healthy food at spiralling prices, and to pay for the requirements for healthy activities.
Google? The last people i am concerned about. Content makers, that's an interesting story. SV and others rips them off, and crushes the business models that supported their livelyhoods. But now I have to be concerned about the youtube content makers?
Think about it. People do things without recompense all the time. It's called joy, or something. It is a fact. If that's not possible, they could investigate setting up patreons.
What YT have somehow done is repackage their business model in vivo in your head. It's not Yt's business model at all. It is a moral obligation to creators.
The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course.
Consumers with a moral concern for the world rather than just passing emotional whims are supposed to allow themselves to recognise how hard nosed the investors and executives are.
This is all business. All transactions. Forget the selling of attention and data. Your presence and interest in a thing is advertising, and affirms it as something of value.
I'm respectful of the desire to support people who create things of value for us, but it's absolutely vital to realise that one of life's great joys is doing so for free.
Frankly sometimes when I feel there's also an air of desperation around this discussion. If the transition from free to paid service can't be normalised, a lot of people on here would seem to stand to lose or face uncertainty.
I wish I could impart upon people there is a great need to frequently revisit and exploring our moral, ethical social contracts - and to realise how flimsy our justifications are, and how limited we are in being able to concieve of the realities involve. There's something childlike about it. It's hard to know when just to leave that alone, as entire point is that life might not offer any certainty whatsoever as to the 'goodness' inherent in the act or any protection against it unwittingly - in the final analysis - proving to be a terrible thing for all involved, if only we understood (but we can't).
Basically... uhhh.... we could stand to be hard nosed consumers. Not cynical, but perhaps not avoiding the "realist" view that there are huge and unavoidable ambiguities and contradictions in everything we are engaging with, and pretending otherwise is not about being a wise adult, it's about silly and childish ideas such as good and evil.
I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.
> The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course.
I think this part is how our views differ. YouTube is a whole lot different than it used to be, and it's a whole lot deeper than what it looks on the surface. There's a ton of videos there that aren't made to be addictive. For example world class instructional videos, educational videos, and such.
You can rant at me for going to the super market, claiming they're exploiting me by putting addictive sugar and other crap in the candy bars and potato chips. That is what you go to the supermarket for and the only thing you see. But I go to the back to buy vegetables and a steak.
> I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.
The same can be said of any technology, or just in general anything. But information can have immense value. Today if you have a car problem you can go on YouTube and find a video with an expert showing you exactly what to do. Just one of many examples. There was no business model for independent video creators before YouTube. Now the consumer can choose freely, instead of the capitalist or communist scumbag executives deciding what should be seen.
> This is all business.
Yes, and the product is incredibly cheap for the amount of value you can get from it.
One thing communists and capitalists have in common is that they can never enjoy life for a single moment. One for the obsession of making a dollar, the other for the obsession of saving a dollar. All beauty is sucked out of life by these materialistic faiths.
I think this part is how our views differ. YouTube is a whole lot different than it used to be, and it's a whole lot deeper than what it looks on the surface. There's a ton of videos there that aren't made to be addictive. For example world class instructional videos, educational videos, and such.
You can rant at me for going to the super market, claiming they're exploiting me by putting addictive sugar and other crap in the candy bars and potato chips. That is what you go to the supermarket for and the only thing you see. But I go to the back to buy vegetables and a steak.
> I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.
The same can be said of any technology, or just in general anything. But information can have immense value. Today if you have a car problem you can go on YouTube and find a video with an expert showing you exactly what to do. Just one of many examples. There was no business model for independent video creators before YouTube. Now the consumer can choose freely, instead of the capitalist or communist scumbag executives deciding what should be seen.
> This is all business.
Yes, and the product is incredibly cheap for the amount of value you can get from it.
One thing communists and capitalists have in common is that they can never enjoy life for a single moment. One for the obsession of making a dollar, the other for the obsession of saving a dollar. All beauty is sucked out of life by these materialistic faiths.
Wow that’s a lot of work to avoid paying 10is dollars a month?
I use ad blockers everywhere, but for me it’s „set it and forget it“. I don’t have time and energy to adjust that regularly.
I use ad blockers everywhere, but for me it’s „set it and forget it“. I don’t have time and energy to adjust that regularly.
YouTube is an incredibly valuable product. It's hard to believe that it's possible for a platform like this to exist at all, even more be sustainable with ads only (maybe it isn't though). I'd gladly pay $20/mo for that – to anybody other than Google.
I do understand that with Premium they actually have an incentive to pivot from their current surveillance tech niche to a more decent model, but uhhhh. That's Google we're talking about. It's just not happening.
I do understand that with Premium they actually have an incentive to pivot from their current surveillance tech niche to a more decent model, but uhhhh. That's Google we're talking about. It's just not happening.
Imagine valuing your time so little you waste it trying to block instead of just abstaining or using premium.
When Facebook started being user hostile I stopped using it wholesale.
Anti Google YouTube folks haven’t gotten the message yet.
If you make 25 an hour - the bottom decile wage for software engineering - and waste more than half an hour on this a month, idk what to say. That’s a minute a day. Chop chop.
By the way if you consider YouTube premium for family or friend group of 5 you’re paying 5 bucks a month. That means you have 12 minutes a month to waste, or about 24 seconds a day.
If you’re at a typical FANG company making entry salary you have about 5 seconds a day to waste.
Time is precious. Stop wasting it trying to fight ads when you’re capable of paying to get rid of them.
When Facebook started being user hostile I stopped using it wholesale.
Anti Google YouTube folks haven’t gotten the message yet.
If you make 25 an hour - the bottom decile wage for software engineering - and waste more than half an hour on this a month, idk what to say. That’s a minute a day. Chop chop.
By the way if you consider YouTube premium for family or friend group of 5 you’re paying 5 bucks a month. That means you have 12 minutes a month to waste, or about 24 seconds a day.
If you’re at a typical FANG company making entry salary you have about 5 seconds a day to waste.
Time is precious. Stop wasting it trying to fight ads when you’re capable of paying to get rid of them.
Imagine valuing yourself and your money so little that you'd pay a company who is actively harassing you with unwanted attempts at manipulation to pretty please leave you alone and let you see the free content you want without interruption.
some people just like to throw money at a problem, whereas i personally like to keep my money and use my brains or will power but thats just me.
100% agree. Those people who care about that shouldn’t use YouTube or any Google services at all.
It’s easy to degoogle. Kagi search is a good start.
It’s easy to degoogle. Kagi search is a good start.
> Those people who care about that shouldn’t use YouTube or any Google services at all.
While it'd be wise to avoid Google for privacy reasons, I see no problem with people making a choice to use YouTube if they want to. People can decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to take for the content hosted there. I totally respect people's choice to avoid Google to whatever limited extent that is possible, but I also respect people's choice to engage with Google on their own terms. I'd just hope that that choice is a well informed one.
For me personally that means my use of youtube involves never logging into youtube, not using youtube to view the content hosted there (I either use NewPipe or yt-dlp to download videos and then use VLC to view them), avoiding searching for content I wouldn't want forever associated with my identity, blocking ads, blocking suggested videos, blocking comments, etc. it works pretty well for me.
While it'd be wise to avoid Google for privacy reasons, I see no problem with people making a choice to use YouTube if they want to. People can decide for themselves how much risk they're willing to take for the content hosted there. I totally respect people's choice to avoid Google to whatever limited extent that is possible, but I also respect people's choice to engage with Google on their own terms. I'd just hope that that choice is a well informed one.
For me personally that means my use of youtube involves never logging into youtube, not using youtube to view the content hosted there (I either use NewPipe or yt-dlp to download videos and then use VLC to view them), avoiding searching for content I wouldn't want forever associated with my identity, blocking ads, blocking suggested videos, blocking comments, etc. it works pretty well for me.
It is not so simple, YouTube now hosts a lot of culturally relevant material. I stopped using Facebook and Instagram and WhatsApp and frankly I don’t keep in touch or visit in person with as many people anymore. Some of that is for the better, but a lot of it is strictly a negative for me.
This type of pseudo rational/economic reasonings are only half-smart. (In the same vein, I am not growing vegetables in my garden to save money or time)
In practice, many decisions are neither about money or time.
In this case, this is about voting with your wallet. I don't care about the price, but I really care about not increasing the revenue of Google.
In practice, many decisions are neither about money or time.
In this case, this is about voting with your wallet. I don't care about the price, but I really care about not increasing the revenue of Google.
While you make a good point, I think it's safe to say that Youtube is quite a lot more significant for the average person than facebook is.
Say that I wanted guides or tutorials on fixing something in my car, in-depth steps for making a certain recipe, or even programming courses. Youtube is easily one of the best resources for all of these and everything in general.
Saying to write-off one of the internet's best tools just because they've pushed out mv3 seems like giving up too quickly for me.
Say that I wanted guides or tutorials on fixing something in my car, in-depth steps for making a certain recipe, or even programming courses. Youtube is easily one of the best resources for all of these and everything in general.
Saying to write-off one of the internet's best tools just because they've pushed out mv3 seems like giving up too quickly for me.
> Saying to write-off one of the internet's best tools just because they've pushed out mv3 seems like giving up too quickly for me.
If you find value in it, why don't you reward the people creating that value?
If you find value in it, why don't you reward the people creating that value?
The people creating that value get very little from ad revenue. Google keeps most of the money. This is why many creators are turning to Patreon, etc.
> 25 an hour - the bottom decile wage for software engineering
You should be aware that most software engineers in the world live outside of US. Most of them make less than that. But that's just nitpicking.
The problem with your logic is that you suggest to feed the beast that will devour you whole. Youtube is involved in multiple planetary-scale propaganda campaigns.
You should be aware that most software engineers in the world live outside of US. Most of them make less than that. But that's just nitpicking.
The problem with your logic is that you suggest to feed the beast that will devour you whole. Youtube is involved in multiple planetary-scale propaganda campaigns.
I get the impression that a lot of the people making a stink over this are teens or people in their early 20s who have plenty of time and not a lot of disposable income. I can't help but think back to my days as a broke high school/college kid torrenting music and movies when I spent more time than I care to admit downloading and labeling mp3 files when everything I wanted was available on iTunes for a price.
Some people are in a place where time isn't their most valuable commodity.
I'm not really defending them because, personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything. If you don't like their policy go somewhere else. I'm just saying that for some people it is worth their time.
Some people are in a place where time isn't their most valuable commodity.
I'm not really defending them because, personally, I think the whole thing is stupid. Youtube doesn't owe anyone anything. If you don't like their policy go somewhere else. I'm just saying that for some people it is worth their time.
how does writing incredibly smart comments on the internet factor into your little calculation ... ? you have any idea how much money you just lost? lol
>Imagine valuing your time so little you waste it trying to block instead of just abstaining or using premium.
I mean it takes ~15 seconds to update uBlock Origin's filter scripts any time there's an update to bypass YouTube. Based on my current salary that's under 50 cents worth of my time. Also I've actually had zero adblock warnings on Firefox so far, my wife had issues on Opera and uBO wasn't updated yet and I spent a minute getting Firefox set up for her so I guess that was about $1-$2 of my time.
I mean it takes ~15 seconds to update uBlock Origin's filter scripts any time there's an update to bypass YouTube. Based on my current salary that's under 50 cents worth of my time. Also I've actually had zero adblock warnings on Firefox so far, my wife had issues on Opera and uBO wasn't updated yet and I spent a minute getting Firefox set up for her so I guess that was about $1-$2 of my time.
>I mean it takes ~15 seconds to update uBlock Origin's filter scripts any time there's an update to bypass YouTube. Based on my current salary that's under 50 cents worth of my time.
It takes me precisely 0 seconds to update uBO's scripts. It's all done automatically; am I the only one here that doesn't spend any time at all blocking ads? I installed uBO ages ago, I've spent a couple minutes going through the options and enabling almost everything useful to me (annoyance lists, etc.), and that was it. It doesn't take any effort on my part to block ads on YouTube or anywhere else now that it's set up.
Also, I've also have zero adblock warnings so far, on FF/Linux, FFNightly/Android, and SmartTubeNext.
Setting up a YouTube Premium account and managing the payment details would honestly take me far more time than it does for me to block ads.
It takes me precisely 0 seconds to update uBO's scripts. It's all done automatically; am I the only one here that doesn't spend any time at all blocking ads? I installed uBO ages ago, I've spent a couple minutes going through the options and enabling almost everything useful to me (annoyance lists, etc.), and that was it. It doesn't take any effort on my part to block ads on YouTube or anywhere else now that it's set up.
Also, I've also have zero adblock warnings so far, on FF/Linux, FFNightly/Android, and SmartTubeNext.
Setting up a YouTube Premium account and managing the payment details would honestly take me far more time than it does for me to block ads.
I could be wrong, but I interpreted gp as criticizing those who make the solutions available/easy, not those who use the solutions. The former are "trying to block" which takes time -- the latter simply block which is closer to immediate. And then there's us discussing the whole thing, which shows that sometimes the pleasure is in the journey, not the destination.
Well the creator of uBlock Origin probably rakes in a few hundred thousand in donations and other revenue annually, so it's probably well worth their time too.
But yeah, arguing about it all online has always been the most fun part.
But yeah, arguing about it all online has always been the most fun part.
Ubo doesn't accept donations
[deleted]
The people who make the solutions are probably doing it because they enjoy it, just like many OSS projects. It's just like ages ago when crackers spent tons of time reverse-engineering games to defeat copy protection: it was a challenge for them, and they enjoyed sharing the results with their communities.
Or how about no, and instead of just rolling over and paying for bad behavior, we fight for a free, open internet.
Youtube/Google make enough money monetizing our usage data. Now that they have cornered the market (i.e locking in the users), they are using their dominant position to crank up the prices and enshittify the free experience. That's anti-competitive practices, and they shouldn't be encouraged for that but punished instead.
Youtube/Google make enough money monetizing our usage data. Now that they have cornered the market (i.e locking in the users), they are using their dominant position to crank up the prices and enshittify the free experience. That's anti-competitive practices, and they shouldn't be encouraged for that but punished instead.
If everyone would reason like you, do you think Google won't raise premium prices even more, or put ads for "lesser" premium users, a-la Netflix base subscription?
I value me not being mindraped, more than I value my time.
If there are well over 1,000 "here now" (near top right), this confirms the anti-content blocker code has been updated.
If well below 1,000 "here now", all is fine. At time of writing, it's fine.
* * *
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/