• Blizzard@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    ·
    2 years ago

    Ad blockers are not allowed on YouTube

    • ad blockers are not “on youtube”, they are on my devices

    • allowed by whom?

    • fuck you

  • anywho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I am paying for YouTube Premium, and yet I still have to skip over US-exclusive sponsor sections which almost every Youtuber has nowadays…

    • ironic_elk@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      2 years ago

      That’s why I still use Vanced. Sponsorblock is something I can’t live without even though I have YouTube premium.

    • Norgur@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, almost exclusively either Us-centric and not even available where I live, or so gosh darn expensive that I just will never use the stuff advertised (looking at you, magic spoon)

      • Betty White In HD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        2 years ago

        Pro tip: I’m in the US and typically stay away from companies that advertise on a bunch of YouTube channels and podcasts. It usually means that they put more dollars towards advertising than the quality of their products and you’ve likely heard of them through advertising than a good word of mouth.

        MeUndies is shit but expensive underwear, Casper mattresses are going to fuck your back in a few years, Dollar Shave Club is grossly overpriced for what it is, a lot of actual experienced therapists stay away from Better Help and it’s a borderline scam, Liquid Death is just tap water in a can, RayCons are just mediocre headphones sold at a premium, etc.

        If they have money to throw towards every other YouTuber and podcaster, then they’re probably only prioritizing growth over maintaining and improving their quality and operations. That’s just how it is.

        • joshuaacasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          you should check out linustechtips. The sponsors they get/accept are actually decent reputable companies with decent products.

          • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            2 years ago

            Linus’s video on their sponsors gave them way too much benefit of the doubt for scummy practices I would have dropped a company for

            • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 years ago

              To be fair a lot of us here on Lemmy are likely to be more principled or have staunch opinions on companies and products - we’ve abandoned the orange R, and likely centralised social media for one thing.

              From my POV, Linus seems to tone down his views in videos, and his writers are the ones doing the research for the video rather than him. He’s a lot more critical of companies on the WAN show from what I’ve seen

              • NightOwl@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 years ago

                Doesn’t really matter if he is critical on one segment but not so much either. Or that the blame is shifted to the writers. But, I guess it’s just to say whoever it is sponsored segments are not to be trusted by default, and best being ignored.

                Like even pro athletes end up shilling and using products that end up hurting them despite being in the 1% in their field like Lonzo Ball and his crappy shoes.

                • Norgur@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Here in Germany, the national soccer team has been advertising Nutella for decades. I don’t think they eat the chocolate flavored sugar-fat as much as they are paid to pretend…

          • NightOwl@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            My first impression for anything on YouTube is untrustworthy spam. Don’t matter who it is. It’s just the reality of paid sponsorships, and anyone being paid is going to generally talk up the positives, and talk up how much integrity they have. It’s not just a YouTube thing either. I assume the same for celebrity endorsements even if it is in an area they are an expert in like sports, since product they use isn’t the quality that reaches consumers. Sometimes even the products they use is crap and ends up hurting them. Example Lonzo Ball and the shoes he endorsed.

            It’s just general good skepticism towards the marketing machine. Nobody is to be trusted when it comes to what they are paid to shill.

          • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Linus is getting sponsorship from either actually useful tech software that is for enterprise or it’s some weird niche software or product that no one ever needs.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s funny how we need uBlock Origin, SponsorBlock and maybe even DeArrow (same dev as SB) to make Youtube tolerable.

        • viking@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          I’d love DeArrow to be merged into SmartTubeNext.

          Watching quite some youtube on my TV, and the clickbait suuuuuuucks.

    • Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      97
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      2 years ago

      Eshitification is a result of end stage capitalism. People are trying to extract their last bit of value before society goes tits up due to climate change.

    • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      The markets tanked which meant the cheap VC money dried up. Tech companies are rushing to implement the monetisation and cost-saving strategies they withheld before because it ruined the user growth now to ensure they are maintaining as much revenue as possible.

      • NightOwl@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 years ago

        On desktop blocktube has improved things so much too. It has made search results so much better, since YouTube suppresses smaller channels in favor of the same large youtubers depending on the subject. Really wish it could be integrated into mobile YouTube options, but until then my hope is waiting until mobile firefox getting desktop extension support.

      • rab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        Does anyone know if the dislikes extension is actually accurate or is it a sort of estimation

        • c1177johuk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          2 years ago

          For new videos it’s an estimation with added dislike data of people using the extension, it’s rather accurate for most videos. For old videos before the dislike removal it uses old archived data plus new data added on top using the algorithm and data by the extension users

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m confused, if ublock origin and sponsor block and all those are bypassing this, then who is it actually targeting?

      • kopper [they/them]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        have you ever searched “ad blocker” on your browser of choice’s extension store and scrolled down? or had a cheap/free VPN that advertised ad blocking functionality?

        those. for some reason people install those. and they never get updates.

        (some of them are actual malware too)

        • PeachMan@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Not sure what you’re on about, Google is absolutely capable of detecting if you’re using Ublock Origin, Piped, ReVanced, whatever. The question isn’t if they CAN break those things, it’s just if they WILL.

          And if they’re beta testing this system right now, I’d say it’s just a matter of time.

          • MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Watching all this from the sidelines, I’m very pleased that I took the time to de-Google my critical daily services, already.

        • CumBroth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          It drives me mad when I use PCs of friends and relatives and I see AdBlock Plus installed, but they still get ads and they never seem to stop and wonder why this “ad blocker” is not working! I do however enjoy their facial expressions when I install uBlock Origin for them and start refreshing pages.

      • mesamune@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        The reason people are talking about this new change is that it will bypass the extensions.

      • stealin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        They want to frame it so that internet ID is the solution. That way you as a person can be banned, not just the account or ip. Good luck buying and selling when everything becomes digital and you get banned.

    • 1ird@notyour.rodeo
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ehh. I wouldn’t suggest someone go use any old patched client. Do you due diligence

      • mishimaenjoyer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        if google made youtube premium like $3/month no one would bat an eye and sub. but they’re approaching netflix prices and that’s just way to much. i rather support the creators directly than throwing money at google who will give the creators crumbs until they demonetize them because google is doing google things. also won’t solve the privacy problem that comes with using their native site/apps.

        • R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think part of the problem is that they’re hosting so much more content than Netflix. It really is crazy that it’s free to upload to YouTube to just store all your videos on there. Probably 99.9% of YouTube content does not get enough views to justify the cost of storing it.

          All that being said, YouTube premium comes with a bunch of shit nobody wants so surely they could cut that stuff to lower the price (or tiered pricing for people who want it).

      • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Google has been shamelessly destroying all their projects the last few years in a desperate fit to make money. They’ve weakened ad blockers on chrome, they’ve altered the search algorithm so random BS is mixed in with regular to drive towards sponsored content, their starting to setup browser level DRM and creating un skipable ads. None of this is for anything more than greed and desperation. They no longer see anything other than money as the end goal and don’t care if their selling a shittier product at a higher price than no one was ever even willing to pay for. F*ck google.

        • regbin_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          2 years ago

          YT Premium costs less than $4 for me and I also get YT Music. It sure beats paying $4 for only a music service.

      • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Does YouTube pay their content creators properly? No, they have to rely on external partnerships. Does YouTube help their creators solve issues with greedy companies making copyright claims on not their content? No, they close channels because of such claims and strip creators of income they deserve. Does YouTube keep their platform secure to protect its creators? No, hackers managed to get access to the biggest channels on the platform despite YouTube being aware of the issues for months. Does YouTube at least use their knowledge from spying its users to stop bots posting comments? No, bot comments are all over the place. And I could go like that for ages…

        The fact is YouTube is a shitty platform and people use it because they have to not because they want to. Because they have a fucking monopoly! People are paying thousands of dollars directly to content creators through platforms like Patreon, because they like the content. But people are not willing to support financially the platform that openly don’t give a fuck about their users and creators (which are the only reason this platform exists) and care only about their shareholders. Because why would they pay to make the rich richer while content creators struggle to earn money for rent!

      • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        No. This is why if a service loses sight of its core value proposition, it dies.

        If youtube is actually successful in killing adblocking on their service - which I suppose a server-side timer could actually do - then they will only succeed in killing their relevance, just like so many social media seem to be doing right now.

        I pay for services like a debrid and VPN, because they provide me with the services I need. For very few dollars a month I can get 4K streaming from their servers 24/7. That is all hosting should cost. If the fediverse version of youtube, peertube, became mainstream then collectively people should have absolutely no problem maintaining those costs from the users’ side.

        Once that happens and mainstream video streaming is part of the fediverse, I think the network effect that governs social media might snowball until eventualy centralised social media is a thing of the past.

        Do not pay for youtube, whatever you do. Let them die.

        • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          You think too much of the average person. This sort of thing might affect you, but it won’t affect your friend’s 8 year old brother or his parents who just want a convenient way to watch pewdiepie

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Social networks don’t succeed or fail on casual viewers alone. Youtube is a video sharing site, not a content producer. If they get so toxic that the content producers start finding alternatives, then the casual viewers won’t all leave right away.

            If it gets so bad that big creators, like pewdiepie, have alternatives that grow in relevance and youtube loses its critical market share then it will eventually lose the casual viewers too, especially if those alternatives aren’t up to their eyeballs in ads.

            We saw this with digg losing its place to reddit, where they sold out their content to publishers. Content got thinner and worse until the vast majority of users left for reddit.

            This may not be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. For reddit it was the API lockdown, for twitter it’s… well I could point to any number of individual decisions but let’s just call them Elon Musk. Facebook hasn’t quite hit that tipping point yet I don’t think.

            With youtube I can easily see this being part of a string of decisions to promote publisher content over user content. They’re already selling views which could really sink them in the end.

        • focusedkiwibear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          lol this post is nothing more than a tantrum from a leech of a service they’re too cheap to pay for and scrabbling for reasons other than said cheap-ness

          you may get likes on the internet for this wholly selfish take but we all know it’s nothing more than that.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            It’s just devastating when you invent unwholesome motivations for my words to attack as an alternative to attacking the ideas themselves.

            My ego is in tatters.

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

          You do realize the average person watches YouTube on their TV or their phone, with ads? You are not the target audience for Google.

          So I fully expect YouTube to kill adblocking at some point and they might lose what? 10% of users? Of which 5% either come back to watch ads or pay the subscription because all the content is on there?

          I’m 100% pro adblocker, the internet is a mess without, but it’s stupid to think YouTube wouldn’t cut you off the moment you don’t provide any benefit to their service (For example despite adblocking you might give Superchat money to streamers, or join Streamer memberships).

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Audience is only part of the equation, arguably not the largest part. How many content creators use adblock? The big ones already know how completely meaningless ad revenue is because youtube doesn’t pay them enough and they are already aware of how easy it is to block ads. Also they’re more likely to be using youtube on a desktop because they use one to create, and they also are more aware of the alternatives like revanced. A lot of big creators have spoken out over the years in favour of adblocking.

            If youtube makes it impossible for creators to use their own platform they’ll leave in droves, and they will have the voice to encourage their audience to follow. Youtube isn’t the main voice on their own site, the creators are.

            Another thing this will impact is the ability for creators to collaborate, since they would have to watch others’ ads in order to see their videos.

            Once that happens, the audience will naturally follow. That’s how social media sites have failed in the past. They’ve pissed off the power users to the point they finally left, then the content declined, then users followed.

            Youtube is making the same mistake all capitalist entities do, of mistreating the people who actually make the product they’re selling. It’s a fundamental contradiction that only leads to decline in the end, it’s just a matter of when. This may not be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, if this isn’t it, then something down the line will be.

      • 𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒏@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        2 years ago

        Personally I don’t want to pay Google out of principle tbh, the creators I support can benefit from my Patreon donations and Nebula subscription

        • BeeOneTwoThree@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          2 years ago

          I find this take wierd. If you do not want to support Google, stop using services created by them.

          The content creators can upload videos to multiple platforms if they want to

        • regbin_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s way too expensive and I can’t afford it. YTP is less than $4 a month so at least the creators gets at least a few cents from my views, and I watch a lot of creators.

          • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Where the hell are you paying less than $4 a month? It’s $14 here in America. Even with a student discount, it’s still twice the price you’re quoting.

        • regbin_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          2 years ago

          I want creators to get paid when I watch them but I also don’t want ads. YT Premium is affordable (it costs less than $4 a month for me) for me and I also get YT Music with it. I watch hundreds of hours worth of video from multiple creators so it’s a fair deal.

          • rabbit_wren@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 years ago

            Quit bragging and start sharing that code you’re using for $4/month YT Premium that the rest of us have to pay $13.99 after last month’s price hike.

          • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Woah dude that’s crazy. Anyways, I’m still going to AdBlock them and pirate yt music. Big tech can suck my

        • regbin_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          2 years ago

          Because somehow paying $4 a month is unreasonable for a service that I use for 2-4 hours every day.

          Right.

        • mjs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          There’s a reason why they are the only ones. It’s very hard to scale a platform to YouTube scale. Like insanely hard and very expensive. The only other players that could take over are Meta and maybe Microsoft. Not sure if they would be any better.

          • webadict@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            Is pirating stealing? Nothing was taken from YouTube. You could say it’s unauthorized access, or unauthorized duplication of data, but none of that leaves YouTube down any data.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              In their defense, it costs bandwidth to Google.

              In my attack, fuck Google. Costing them money is a good thing. They are literally trying to lock down corporate control over the Internet.

      • Durotar@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 years ago

        I support the sentiment, but today everything is a service that wants your money, this resource is finite. And when it comes to YouTube, it’s not even about whether you like it or not: YouTube is a monopolist.

        • Tenniswaffles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          And that’s how things die due to no revenue. Running YouTube is expensive af and the more people who used things like revanced, the worse things will become for everyone else.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            It’s funny how you put all the blame on the users and none on the people that run the site. They fail to pay creators properly, fail to protect them from copyright claim abuse, and all the while they expect those creators to keep making content to keep their site relevant. It’s going to come crashing down eventually.

            Also, in matters of taste the customer is always right. If people are so fed up with ads that they adblock en masse and/or leave, then youtube are the only ones to blame.

      • widerporst@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ll gladly pay for a service that doesn’t thrive on pushing propaganda down people’s throats to maximize watch time and that isn’t actively trying to make my user experience miserable by removing downvotes, forcing shorts and so on.

        I’d rather pay someone to kick me in the nuts. Sounds like a better deal tbh.

        • regbin_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 years ago

          I meant that if you use YouTube a lot, it would be fair to pay for an ad-free experience.

          • Anamana@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 years ago

            And you realize that YouTube will do everything in their hands to stop you from using these apps in the future right? That was kinda the point of the article.

            Making people pay (with their time and attention) while they are already paying for subscription will not encourage more people to buy premium.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Dear Youtube: Bring back the downvote count, allow me to disable shorts, allow me to disable your bullshit annoying ass startup music, then half the price and then we’ll talk about paying for your “service”.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Being able did disable content you don’t want aside from ads with a paid membership would be a huge boon.

      Killing shorts would be fantastic, and they shouldn’t care if I’m not using a feature as long as I’m paying.

  • MrMamiya@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Ah YouTube, the site where I watch a video that tells me in ten minutes what I could read in one. And only 5 advertisements!

    Oops, six. I forgot the ad the creator slipped in between minute 1 and 2.

      • GigglyBobble@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        No, they have a point. Because you earn money by views, people now make videos about everything instead of writing something somewhere that can be found by search engine. Video has its uses but it’s far overused nowadays and it sucks.

        • NightOwl@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          That’s why I use YouTubetranscript now to read through the video to see if it is even worth watching, since so much stuff is unnecessarily long due to how algorithms push those videos to the top.

    • NightOwl@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 years ago

      I would like to use this opportunity to make more people aware of YouTubetranscript.

      Sites been a huge time saver just reading through the video instead of sitting through 10 minute long videos that turn out to be a waste of time that could have been said in a couple minutes.

    • tool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      How can you possibly forget the mid-video ad read that is actually a part of the video, thus unblockable?

      • kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I mean, if it is an ad that actually directly gets the video creator paid, I’m not even mad about those, especially when it’s quality content. Not a fan of those who just take common searches for questions online and create a long video to explain the answer when it should have just stayed as a stackoverflow question and answer or something.

      • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s like how they expect you to pay for things at a store now too! Like “I just wanted some milk dude!”

    • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I used SponsorBlock for a while and it worked pretty well. It crowdsources where the ads are in a video and you can choose to skip them automatically.

    • autokludge@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Recommend hitting ‘4’ (40%) straight away on how to videos, its usually the start of showing you how to do the thing.

    • King@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      So I’m sure u wont have a problem avoiding it therefore this doesnt concern you

  • dmrzl@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    2 years ago

    “While the duration of this timer isn’t revealed, we expect it to be somewhere around 30 to 60 seconds.”

    Peak journalism.

    • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      We suspect it may or may not be somewhere in the ballpark on five seconds to seven days.

  • Jennie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    fuck YouTube premium. why would I pay £19.99 a month when literally the only defining feature for me is no ads. all this will do is allow for more complex ad blockers to be made to bypass this

    • Z4rK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      The creators also get a good chunk of the money from premium as far as I’ve been able to verify (by asking some I follow directly).

      • Hardeehar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Why not pay creators directly through Patreon PayPal or equivalent instead of Google as well?

        • mjs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          If no one pays for YouTube how can they keep supporting their insanely costly infrastructure? Hosting all those videos is not free. Far from it.

          I’m perfectly fine paying for YouTube if that means I can continue to have access to awesome creators under a easy to use platform. It would be a very sad day if Google decided to shut down YouTube due to not being able to cover it’s costs.

          The only other company that could potentially take over would be meta. Which would probably be even worse. At least YouTube provides an option to pay to disable ads.

          • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            I just wish they kept the ads at the start and end. There is something off putting about watching some documentary about some horrible event only to have it pause for some perky Grammarly ad in the middle of it.

          • Hardeehar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            I would be fine if YouTube crumbled and was put into second place by a better platform or two.

            Yes it’s the best option currently which is why they can do such ridiculous practices.

            But once they have actual competition, I expect them to bend over backwards for my attention. Because if they don’t change the current trajectory, they’ll go the way of the other digital giants of the past.

            Do not worry about having a viable platform in a future without YouTube. I am 100% sure there will be one.

          • Blackmist@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Good. Let them close it.

            They won’t, because it’s still making money hand over fist. This is all because tech profits are down a smidge now we’re all getting back to normal after COVID, so they’re all cranking up the enshittification dial to compensate.

            None of these companies are “losing” money. They’re just making very slightly less than they were before. Fuck 'em.

          • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            This is an extremely unlikely hypothetical. Google is one of the most profitable companies in the world and there is no sign of that changing, even considering all the people who block ads right now. There is no reason to squeeze everyone like this.

        • chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That’s why, when most people opt to give directly, they’re effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.

          I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator’s cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator’s cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it’s considerably more than they’d get from an ad-watching viewer.

          • ⚡⚡⚡@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            50?

            If I filter out the ones I don’t watch regulary and the ones I don’t want to support for reasons (e.g. German television chanels I need to pay for anyway) and the ones that don’t accept donations, there are maybe 5 left…

            Paypal, Visa, … usually take a cut between 2 und 4%…

            2-4% vs 45%…

            In my case, there’d be no reason to pay Google. Additioanally, I don’t like Google and don’t want to support it.

    • sunbytes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      There’s a lite version that’s only for the ads.

      It’s cheaper than the full 19.99.

      While that might still be too much, I just wanted to point out that if you don’t want ads, it doesn’t cost the full 20quid.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is one of these problem with multiple unsolvable issues:

    • people are used to ad block and won’t change
    • the price is too high for part of the population (-> ad block for part of them)
    • $1/month, $10/year would attract new paid account but not that much
    • people can’t afford/don’t want a subscription everything
    • users don’t see any value in it
    • a fraction of the paid will go ad block with the price increase
    • people will circumvent the ad block block
    • capitalism
    • Pechente@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 years ago

      They already solved it. Premium was way cheaper before they started bundling it with Music which is just utter garbage. I’d pay like 5€ / month for YouTube Premium without Music IF the experience was actually good and they didn’t shove shorts in my face everywhere like that non-dismissable panel that breaks up my subscriptions now.

    • tibi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think a lot of people would subscribe if they had a lower price tier where they have a reduced amount of ads (like an ad every few videos). Without ad blockers, youtube is unwatchable, you get more ads than you would on TV (where in many places ads are legally capped at around 15mins/hour).

      • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        I think they are likely to pull a Netflix and create a lower premium tier with ad support and missing other premium features like picture in picture

  • _sideffect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    I just got my first 30 second UNSKIPPABLE ad on my TV the other day…I closed youtube, as watching a 1min video is NOT worth 30 seconds of ads

  • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    There is something fundamentally wrong with a service that shows more ads than content.

  • Graphine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    Dear YouTube,

    Go fuck yourselves.

    Sincerely, the 1% of people who actually use adblockers happily.