- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.linuxuserspace.show
- technology@lemmy.zip
Sounds like trouble for Newpipe, Sponsorblock, etc…
Nora ( @crazyminner@lemmy.ml ) 91•1 year agoI will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.
SuperSpruce ( @SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip ) 7•1 year agoI can tolerate ads as long as it’s helping the creators and isn’t used to make the platform worse. The first condition is only sometimes satisfied and the 2nd is being straight up violated.
If they can fix how garbage search is and put the dislike count back, I’ll happily pay for premium as a thank you for making a great platform. But nope, they just focus on making the UI even worse.
youmaynotknow ( @jjlinux@lemmy.ml ) 2•1 year agoNo Google product will ever see my money. I will, however, donate to good content providers, and I do every now and then.
tias ( @tias@discuss.tchncs.de ) 5•1 year agoWhat is your suggestion for financing the YouTube infrastructure and development?
darkphotonstudio ( @darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org ) 17•1 year agoI don’t fucking care.
jkrtn ( @jkrtn@lemmy.ml ) 11•1 year agoI don’t really have a plan for this since I won’t be giving money to far-right propagandists and their spiral of rage attention algorithm.
Broken ( @Broken@lemmy.ml ) 11•1 year agoThis is a good discussion point, rather than an arms race discussion of ads vs adblockers.
Some key points to make are that Google is making a crap ton of money from ads, they are keeping most of it so creators must resort to sponsorships and patreon. Google additionally makes money by selling your profile data.
It’s not like I have a true answer to your question, but a “workable” system should consist of: Google makes money Creators make money Customers are reasonably private The concept of making money isn’t about making the entire system worse, just so you pay for it not to be
My problem with Google is they don’t really care. They’ll burn it all if it makes them money until it’s dead.
There could be some key features that get implemented on a paid tier, but paying is just ads vs no ads.
An equally valid question would be, what can YT do to incentivize you to pay? They could ad features only available to subscribers, but they really don’t.
I would make it a semi walled garden, with free and premium content. Subscription tiers would be for customers and creators alike. Vimeo has a good system (though not perfect) with feature sets only available certain tiers. There’s incentive to upgrade if you want those features.
Here’s a big differentiator though. YT has this magic algorithm that feeds you what it wants to. Creators have no say in that (nor do customers). But if I post a video you like, I want you to watch more of my videos, not videos from somebody else similar to me. YT takes full control, and sends people away just as fast as sending them in. Why would I pay for that?
Platforms like Vimeo don’t do that (I’m not advocating vimeo, they’re just the example I think is most comparable). Wouldn’t having some level of control over that as a viewing customer and content creator have value? No, let’s just slap ads on it.
I can also argue that this goes against my final criterea point, that YT just made things worse with their algorithm and this is just paying to remove it. There was a day where subscribing to a channel meant you got to see their videos. No bell ringing needed.
And I’m sorry I just vomited my brain into these thoughts and wall of text. If you made it this far, bless you.
But this is why I don’t use YT directly. I was with vanced but ended up with newpipe, because its a simple scraper. That fact not only removes ads, but it gives me control of what I watch with my time (which has value). That is the lesson YT forgot, and the root of why any of this is an issue.
lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 3•1 year agoAs far as I’m aware, the majority of money that YouTubers make comes from youtube ads.
Youtube is also way better than pretty much every other social media (or similar) for paying their content creators.
Broken ( @Broken@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year agoI don’t know that to be true based on what I’ve heard. But assuming it is, it’s still clearly not enough for a creator to survive. So a “fair” payment is still required.
phi1997 ( @phi1997@kbin.social ) 6•1 year agoIt should be publicly-funded, like infrastructure. Having a video sharing platform is clearly very important, but I don’t think there are any companies that are both capable of running it and trustworthy enough to do so.
Nora ( @crazyminner@lemmy.ml ) 6•1 year agoI only pay capitalists what is absolutely necessary. I will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn’t profit driven comes along.
lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 4•1 year agoI will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn’t profit driven comes along.
I doubt that will ever happen on a big enough scale. Running a video platform is hard and very expensive and making videos is hard and expensive for the creators.
itslilith ( @itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•11 months agoI’m happy to pay for creator-owned sites like Nebula, but Google, Facebook etc won’t see a single penny from me
lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 1•11 months agoSure I also use an adblocker everywhere but you should be aware that you are harming creators and not just the big companies.
itslilith ( @itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•11 months agoI use an adblocker and sponsorblock on YouTube. I also pay for Nebula and various Patreon subscriptions/KoFi donations. In the end, I’m confident creators got more out of me than many regular users, and I’m not giving money to Google all the while.
lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 1•11 months agoDepends on if you donate to all the creators to watch or just a few.
verdigris ( @verdigris@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year agoSpend their money that they hoard?
Art should not be produced for profit, because it stops being art. Ideally we would subsidize artists, or better yet provide for everyone’s needs and let them make art in their free time. Forcing us to watch corporate propaganda about fucking dishwasher detergent ain’t it.
tias ( @tias@discuss.tchncs.de ) 2•1 year agoSo call the shareholders and ask them to pay back the dividends that they’ve received over the years, to fund the YouTube infrastructure? That begs the question, what do we do when that money runs out?
verdigris ( @verdigris@lemmy.ml ) 3•1 year agoI imagine society will collapse from climate change before Google runs out of cash.
☂️- ( @umbrella@lemmy.ml ) 4•1 year agodont threaten me with a good time
BraveSirZaphod ( @BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social ) 4•1 year agoYou’re never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.
Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?
Senal ( @Senal@programming.dev ) English2•1 year agoYou’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,
The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.
I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.
Youtube isn’t an existential need.
Ad’s or bust isn’t a real dichotomy.
Here’s another honest suggestion, drop
freead supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.It’d significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they’d be able to fund it with subscription monies.
edit: used the wrong quote at the start
blindsight ( @blindsight@beehaw.org ) 23•1 year agoDoes NewPipe use the YouTube API, or is it a scraper? Also, how will this fix Vanced, that’s using the actual YouTube app?
There are also browser extensions that just play the ads, muted, at like 100× speed. It might as well just be a tiny buffering hiccup at that speed.
I guess we’ll need to see, but I’m not too worried.
PoorPocketsMcNewHold ( @PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml ) 14•1 year agoIt’s a scraper. And, in theory, it shouldn’t even cause any issues with ReVanced modified Youtube patches except if they need to be updated.
HopingForBetter ( @HopingForBetter@lemmy.today ) 1•1 year agoYeah, every few 18 months you’ll probably have to get the latest api and re-revance it. But unless they lock up their api somehow, revanced should be good.
robzombie91 ( @robzombie91@lemmy.ml ) 17•1 year ago lud ( @lud@lemm.ee ) 3•1 year agoWill lots of people stopped using adblockers last time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
yuri ( @yuri@pawb.social ) 11•1 year agoOne of my biggest pet peeves recently has been people trying to show me <30 second videos on their phone, and having to sit through a full ass 30 second advertisement. It takes such minimal effort to block the ads, you’ll make up the time invested within a week.
And you know what, as I’m typing this I’m realizing it’s not purely the ads that are annoying. Just don’t fucken show people random 30 second meme videos in person, it’s annoying as shit. Send a link or something, we all have phones.
/rant
Sir_Kevin ( @Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English3•1 year agoI feel this. If you’re holding your phone up to my face it better be something off your own camera roll.
PixeIOrange ( @PixeIOrange@feddit.de ) 3•1 year ago30 seconds arent that bad.
I once was forced to a five minutes video. Five minutes of pure cringe can feel like hours.
ToucheGoodSir ( @ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol ) 10•1 year agoSeems like a waste of imperial resources 🤔🤔🤔 what’s the point of an arms race like that
jevans ⁂ ( @thejevans@lemmy.ml ) 8•1 year agoWell, hopefully my invidious instance holds up for a while
This is the best summary I could come up with:
YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile.
In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”
It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.
But now, YouTube says its policies don’t allow “third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership.” This appears to target mobile ad blockers like AdGuard, which lets you open YouTube within the ad blocking app, where you’ll get to view videos interruption-free.
“When we find an app that violates these terms, we will take appropriate action to protect our platform, creators, and viewers.”
This likely won’t come as pleasant news to all the users who watch YouTube through ad blocking apps, but it doesn’t look like YouTube is backing down in its battle against ad blockers anytime soon.
The original article contains 220 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 25%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Imprint9816 ( @Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•1 year agoFolks, Just read the extra 55 words in the article. Most of you wont spend a dime on journalism of any kind, at least fully read the articles your interested in.
astraeus ( @astraeus@programming.dev ) 14•1 year agoAnd give “the verge” some ad revenue? Or potentially have their trackers on my phone/computer? Nah I’m good.
Imprint9816 ( @Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•1 year agoMy bad i assumed people on this sub had the amateur knowledge required to protect themselves and/or avoid the 5 trackers on the site.
Your right though, if clicking a link to theverge is such a massive risk for you, then not reading articles is probably least of your concerns.
MinekPo1 ( @MinekPo1@lemmy.ml ) 1•1 year agoAnd give “the verge” some ad revenue?
Wait you don’t have an ad blocker ? (to be fair I use an adblocker which does pretend to watch and click ads thus giving the verge ad revenue)
Coskii ( @Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 1•1 year agoWhatever the default ad blocker is on opera works fine, always has. Once in a blue moon I’ll see a frame of an ad, but it skips directly after.