Youtube let the other shoe drop in their end-stage enshittification this week. Last month, they required you to turn on Youtube History to view the feed of youtube videos recommendations. That seems reasonable, so I did it. But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don’t get much from my choices. It still did a pretty good job of showing me stuff I was interested in watching.

Then on Oct 1, they threw up a “You’re using an Ad Blocker” overlay on videos. I’d use my trusty Overlay Remover plugin to remove the annoying javascript graphic and watch what I wanted. I didn’t have to click the X to dismiss the obnoxious page.

Last week, they started placing a timer with the X so you had to wait 5 seconds for the X to appear so you could dismiss blocking graphic.

Today, there was a new graphic. It allowed you to view three videos before you had to turn off your Ad Blocker. I viewed a video 3 times just to see what happens.

Now all I see is this.

Google has out and out made it a violation of their ToS to have an ad blocker to view Youtube. Or you can pay them $$$.

I ban such sites from my systems by replacing their DNS name in my hosts file routed to 127.0.0.1 which means I can’t view the site. I have quite a few banned sites now.

    • 👁️👄👁️@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      94
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol it was some Google employee’s job for months to work on this anti AdBlock method and uBlock Origin bypasses it like same day

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        162
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t assume ineptitude.

        I’ve been in the position of being asked to implement an anti-feature. I made it take as long as possible to drive up the cost and designed it to be trivially bypassable because I’m not motivated to intentionally trash my own project.

        • DooDeeDoo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I always thought if youtube pushes the anti ad policy too hard they risk alienating the tech people who will end up on another platform which will start growing much faster. What they do is come up with half assed ad blocking. So casual people and people on locked systems like iPhone YouTube app are forced to watch ads.

          Anyone not bothered by ads or Lacy enough will make Google money by watching ads. So they’re squeezing as much money without going too far. If they wanted to, they could have ads which would be unblock-able.

        • AssPennies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Subterfuge at work, a fun subject to study.

          Some of my favorites from a declassified WWII “simple productivity sabotage” manual:

          • Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.

          • Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.

          • When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committee as large as possible — never less than five.

          • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

          • Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.

          • Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.

          • Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable"and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.

          When I first saw these I was like goddamn, psyops got to my executive director!

        • mog77a@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Adblock solutions still exist for twitch. I’m using one right now. Never seen a single ultra intrusive pre-roll or full screen ad in months. Banner ads occasionally sneak through.

          It does break every now and then for a week or so when twitch updates things, but still infinitely better than sitting through ads.

  • BReel@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    141
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    11 months ago

    “You can go ad free with YouTube premium!”

    Buys premium

    youtube shows ad for paramount plus under my video

    Cancels YouTube premium.

    So anywho there’s a thing called freetube. Just saying. Idk that it’s a perfect alternative, but it’s at least one step further from googles prying eyes and grubby hands.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      11 months ago

      Swapped over about 3 months ago, it’s good to be back in the FF ecosystem. Swapped to chrome long ago after FF became super fat on the resources, now it’s the other way around.

      FF + pihole is awesome.

      • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m starting to lean this way as well.

        I’m not a huge open source/privacy/whatever purist, but it just seems that more and more often, I am reading that FF is the go-to again.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It’s been great so far, and the import function from chrome worked perfectly. It’s what I was worried about the most.

    • dasgoat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not anymore, they’re rolling this out in separate swaths. so if you haven’t seen it, it just means you’ll get to wait a little longer.

      > >no longer works > FF+UB does work with the instructions you can find on reddit.com/r/ublockorigin < no longer works <

      Edit: Freetube works on pc, and F-droid and NewPipe works on Android

    • Swarfega@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I’m using Firefox and uBlock Origin and the same block message.

      • SmoothIsFast@citizensgaming.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You need to use default ublock settings and disable other plug-ins as they are causing the message. Ublock works fine on Firefox

  • Jennie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    YouTube: starts putting 2, sometimes even 3 ads that are often unskippable before and in the middle of 10 minute videos

    Also YouTube: Why are people using adblockers?

  • CapitanStrider@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ublock Origin literally works fine for youtube. If you ever receive a warning like this just clear your cache and refresh your filters.

  • db2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    1 year ago

    But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don’t get much from my choices.

    Implying that deleting them from your view actually deleted them.

      • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Surely they’ll actually comply, not be caught in an audit years down the line and given a friendly “Now now, we talked about this: don’t get caught breaking the law again!” slap on the wrist for failing to delete and instead further monetising that data?

        • dm_me_your_feet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Under GDPR and DMA, there would be real consequences. Like “being broken up or cease to exist” magnitude of consequences. Why would they risk it for the 1% of users who actually care and set their privacy settings accordingly?

          Google doesnt care about you or anyones personal data. They care about the amount they collect. If the most privacy-aware users wrestle back some data and have it deleted, so be it. Google couldnt care less. Users are like cattle to them, as long as the general “data harvest rate” looks okay they wont investigate the odd one out.

          • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Forgive me for being cynical about the odds of those consequences actually being enacted. Giving the courts a weapon for getting such companies in line is one thing, getting the judges to actually fire it another.

            A law is only ever as good as its enforcement.

            If I’m wrong, of course, I’ll be glad to learn that. I’ve just run out of optimism halfway through adolescence.

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

              Check this out:

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems

              Facebook (and the complicit Irish Data Protection Comission) thought so too, an were rekt.

              The case invalidated 2 seperate “safe harbor” agreements between the EU and the USA, making ANY data transfer of EU customers private data to the USA illegal without explicit consent. It was literally pandemonium in the IT sector for a few months, everyone was running stuff in US clouds and panicking.

              This is what makes the EU high court (ECJ/EuGh) special: noone can pressure them politically. They couldn’t care less what anyone but EU law says.

              And that was “just” GDPR, now they have way more EU laws (DMA, DSA) they can throw at FAANG.

  • Duchess of Waves@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Just to let you know, if you use uBlock you can expect it to adapt to this new shenanigan pretty quickly. Also I think €120/year are ridiciously overpriced. Ask me about €30/year and I might consider it for a second.

    To be honest, I wouldn’t mind ads on Youtube if they were less per hour and less obnoxious. But no, every 12 second video now has an ad leading to it.

    Not to mention, if I would pay for every single Video service the usual 8-15€ I would pay like €1000 per year and THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

    Give me “pretty much everything” for €100 per year and we can talk. My offer stands.

  • spudwart@spudwart.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    11 months ago

    If only peertube had the same culture as Lemmy and Mastodon.

    But it feels like, imo, Peertube has fallen to the same pitfalls as other YouTube alternatives. 99% of vids I see on Peertube instances are far-right conspiracy theory videos among other obviously abhorrent content that would otherwise be banned on youtube.

    • grozzle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nebula.tv has lots of excellent videos, a healthy community of creators, a sustainable business model, a lot of good communication between subscribers and management, and I believe is not in financial trouble so far. It’s not free, but it’s affordable.

      • thatsnothowyoudoit@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        As a former Nebula subscriber, here’s my hot take: it also has no real community and no chance for exposure to the up-and-comer (IE no way to breakout since it seems invite only?)

        I’ve found so many great YouTube channels filled with deep experience and expertise before they “catch on” (and some never “catch on”). The ability to find the small, powerful voice who’s just trying to share knowledge…

        I’m not defending YouTube/Alphabet here (as a company they’re no better than any other), I just think Nebula isn’t a great alternative and unless things change, can never be. It’s a walled garden in too many ways (paywall/creator invitations).

        In the year I subscribed to Nebula, I mostly watched the same videos on YouTube. If they were technical enough there was valuable discussion attached to the video; on Nebula that’s not the case and not possible. Even if it was possible I can’t imagine people fragmenting their discussion spaces between YouTube and a closed ecosystem like Nebula.

        Don’t even get me started with their (Nebula) inability to build a video queue -> wasting time and space on a poorly thought-out implementation of Autoplay was a terrible decision that further pushed me off the platform.

        It’s sad, I really wanted to like it. But I voted with my dollars and left.

        • grozzle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          (am the same person you replied to)

          i actually don’t disagree much with your points. i still watch most of the videos posted on both platforms on youtube, not Nebula, tbh.

          for me it’s mostly because Nebula haven’t made an official Kodi addon yet, and the unofficial one (by slyguy) often has buffering issues (which i don’t blame on slyguy).

          i sometimes “fake watch” good videos again on the nebula website to help that creator boost their revenue share of my subscription. a very clumsy hack.

          all that said - i am very glad that the videomakers i follow seem happy with Nebula, and since they say it’s helping them make better videos, i will continue to subscribe.

          i don’t know about the ‘invite only’ thing. i have recommended in yt comments to a couple of people i often watch (Joe Blogs is one, i think also Our Own Devices, DiodeGoneWild, perhaps also Denys Davydof and/or Jake Broe) that they should ask about joining, but i assume my messages weren’t seen, in the depths of yt comments. as for if it’s easy for new creators to join, again don’t know for sure but there seem to be some regular Neb uploaders without much/any yt presence.

    • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Video Just has fundamentally different hosting cost for processing and bandwidth. Amongst the big streaming providers only Netflix makes a profit. Twitch is not profitable, either.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        I just want to point out that a corporation not making a profit doesn’t mean they’re not making money. It means they’ve spent the money on something and then in the accounting they can call it an expense instead of profit. But they still made that money and they still have something to show for it.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Revenue only becomes profit if you let it.

            Got $1m in revenue that you don’t want to declare as profit? Purchase some assets and now you have $1m expense instead.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I guess what I’m saying is that although your first point is true, your second point doesn’t actually support it.

  • Rukmer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    Newpipe is still working great, I haven’t used an official interface in like 3 years.

  • Jordan117@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tbh, I block ads when I can but have a hard time getting angry about this. YouTube is both incredibly useful and incredibly expensive to operate – seriously, what other service lets you upload hours of HD video which anyone in the world can access instantly, indefinitely, for free, and at the same scale YT does? It’s a peerless engineering marvel and it would be a tragedy if it were to shut down. If seeing some short skippable ads is what it takes to keep that resource viable, that’s honestly pretty fair.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just pay for YouTube Premium. It gets me YouTube Music, so for slightly more than the cost of Spotify I get music streaming and ad-free YouTube, and the channels I watch on YouTube get more value out of my streaming than if I watched with ads. And far more than if I watched with an adblocker.

      Google Play Music was so much better than YouTube Music, unfortunately, but YouTube Music is still usable.

      I understand that everyone hates ads. I hate ads, too. But video streaming and content creation aren’t free. I want to support the platform and support the creators whose content I enjoy, and I don’t want ads. So YouTube Premium seems like the easy option.

      • BoofStroke@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ads should be separate from content and not interfere with it. Ad blockers likely wouldn’t be a thing if this were followed. Also, ad networks are a security issue. Host them on your own servers with relationships with advertisers if you must have them.

        • The_Mixer_Dude@lemmus.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          The way ads are displayed effects how effective they are which in turn effects how valuable they are. More people turning to adblockers reduces the effectiveness of the ads and devalues the advertising method as a whole, more adblockers being used, lower effectiveness. YouTube then has to resort to putting in effort to combat adblockers which itself costs even more, ads have to become more intrusive to retain their value so YouTube can maintain it’s own servers and pay it’s content creators and it becomes an endless cycle of “fuck you I want your service for free and you are trampling my rights for trying to profit off me using your product”. In return all YouTube asks of you to obtain an ad-free video watching session for a month is $4 ($22/month split among 6 users)

    • squeakycat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      The tragedy is that the centralized, profit-driven, socially-damaging platform keeps so much value under ransom because the parent company can operate it for so long at a loss.

      I get that the platform is a marvel, it’s just disappointing that its purpose is tailored to keep eyes watching more ads rather than contribute to society as a whole.

    • Traister101@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      I only looked into blocking ads sometime around like 2014-2016? I was perfectly fine with them for a very long time, they got more and more invasive and poor quality to the point I looked into blocking them. Haven’t gone without an ad blocker ever since. No way in hell am I dealing with the current state of YouTube ads which are drastically worse than what pushed me to start blocking them to begin with.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      What angers me is the capital deciding to control everything. Enshittifying ads, pushing narratives, censoring valuable content. If it were a worse service but with better owners, I’d pay more.

      • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, and others have it as part of law that Works Councils get 33% of the seats on the board of directors, and employees are elected to take up those roles. In Slovenia, Germany, and Slovakia, it is as high as 50%. That’s the kind of ownership we should demand and then some, where average people get to have a say in what’s going on at YouTube. Then maybe we’d get more ethical business decisions and choices we’d be more on board with.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors

        • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          This reminds me of how certain universities in the US allow space for Student Senate representatives so that the student body directly has influence on the outcomes of the university. Great idea really

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If google cant afford youtube, they could sell it. But they easily can, so Im not losing sleep over the $2 a week they lose from me.

      Or, alternatively, if the ads were reasonable, next to no one would feel any real obligation to block them. But they arent, so why should I be concerned about the sites funding?

      Like, google isnt some poor struggling indie dev who cant make ends meet. Im not exactly overflowing with sympathy for their business decisions. Theyre the reason adblock is required for modern internet use.

      • Ronnie@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps ads become more unreasonable because so many people block them that those who do watch them are forced to pick up the slack?

        • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, it’s just following the curve, until their metrics show them that people stop watching they reduce the number of ads 10% until next cycle.

          They have been using the frog boiling method, and crossed my limit like two years ago, when they went from a 5 second ad each x videos to two ads for every video.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          When businesses are required to increase profits by 30% every year to not be seen as a failure, they would increase the ads no matter how many of the users watch them.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that YouTube went from “short skippable ads” to almost all ads. It also is a major invader of privacy.

      • laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Reminder that YouTubers control how many ads are on a video and until last year or so you could even host video and have it served to millions with zero ads. Now the minimum is one skippable pre roll but like shit costs money to serve 20 million people an hour log 4k video.

    • centof@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I share the same sentiment but I can see why someone might want to not support Youtube in any way because they don’t want to support Google’s stranglehold on the internet. Unfortunately the correct way to address that problem is sensible regulation. Call me skeptical, but that’s not gonna happen anytime soon.

    • BReel@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      My problem is that I paid for YouTube premium, for “an ad free experience” in their words. Then I immediately had an ad for paramount plus embedded under my video.

      So I canceled and they can go fk themselves. I was willing to support them directly, but they straight up lied about what I was buying from them.

    • Critical_Insight@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Agreed. I’ll fuck around with the workarounds for as long as they work but once YouTube truly manages to make adblocking a complete headache I’ll just switch to a Indian ip-address and buy a cheap premium. I’ve been watching tens of thousands of hours of ad-free content on that site for as long as it has existed. I can’t, with a straight face, complain about the fact that they would like to make some money from it too.

    • coffinwood@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look at all the free image / video services that either never took off or went bust. Especially streaming is quite expensive and isolating only this single aspect of Youtube - cost to operate: what do people expect? Everybody wants few to no ads at all and no subscription either.

      As I said, I don’t want to even touch any other topic here like Youtube’s (perceived) quality or their (spicy) business decisions. If you don’t like the product, don’t use it. There is no right to free consumption of entertainment videos. Imagine paying for a taxi like you (don’t) pay for Youtube.

      And if you know better, start your own platform.

    • fugacity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just like a few of the other posts, I honestly don’t get it. If they can’t sell your data and can’t serve you ads, then why would they want to spend money serving you for free? There’s so many people complaining how YouTube has a monopoly and how it’s not even that hard to run, but I seriously doubt these people. Transcoding video and distributing it worldwide while having automated moderation is not easy or cheap. If there were serious contenders in the space people would have moved on, and I don’t think it’s just the network effect that keeps YouTube as a dominant player here.

      People despise ads, but then they want content for free. They use adblockers to bypass a primary revenue source for a website, then go all surprised Pikachu face when that website doesn’t welcome them. And then they get upset that they don’t want to be the product despite not willing to be a source of ad revenue. I’m willing to pay for YouTube premium (and other subscription models to get rid of ads), but a lot of people aren’t. And honestly, I really would rather those people simply leave the site. It would lower operating costs for YouTube (I don’t expect my subscription fees to go down but maybe their engineers will have more free time to work on features besides adblocker-blocking), and more people on different sites would lead to more competition.

      If you aren’t willing to eat ads, and you aren’t willing to be the product, and you aren’t willing to pay a subscription, then why do you think you’re entitled to content?

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I honestly don’t get it. If they can’t sell your data and can’t serve you ads, then why would they want to spend money serving you for free?

        They shouldn’t. If they can’t figure out how to make money with it they should close it down. If they insist on thinking about it as a product and it doesn’t make money, it’s a product that doesn’t make sense and should not exist. If the only way you can make people use your product is by giving it away, what does that tell you about it?

        They could lock down the platform behind paywall but they don’t want to do that. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the free videos being uploaded but they don’t like all the free viewers. Unfortunately they go hand in hand.

      • piekay@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I totally agree. I am a Youtube Premium user for this exact reason. No ads means less financial incentive to track me (I remember a statistic where one user was worth 4cents per year, could be wrong about the exact number though). In a perfect world we would habe monetization networks instead of ad networks, on a pay per view or subscription model instead of ads. This would not only make the companies more money, but also reduce the incentive for them to track you (I would even claim that unnecessary tracking would hurt their business).

        We can either have a free (as in no costs) or a free (as in liberty) internet, not both

        • stardust@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They are still tracking you though. Removing ads is a reason to pay for YouTube premium, but it’s not to get less tracking. Less tracking is not the selling point or service offered by YouTube premium.

          • piekay@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s because they still have a financial incentive to do so: Google doesn’t offer a fully paid version of their service

          • fugacity@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re definitely still tracking their premium users, I agree. But my counterpoint is, what business, online or not, doesn’t track me? If I go out and buy something at a retail store I’m gonna bet my ass I’m being tracked. If I don’t want to be tracked, then I should be making sure information I consider to be sensitive is not being exposed. If there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in the public, then I think it’s fit that there’s no reasonable expectation to privacy when I’m surfing the internet.

            • stardust@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Read the comment I responded to. They said YouTube premium provides them with less incentive to track them. I’m informing them that is not the benefit of paying for YouTube premium. Too many people mistakenly believe paying means they stop being the product.

              • fugacity@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                In a sense I agree with that piekay though. If they can’t serve me targeted ads on YouTube they lose that money trying to develop technology to track me in that regard. How much money that is I guess is hard to say, since the tracking on YouTube certainly can carry over to other parts of Alphabet.

                • stardust@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not sure how having a paid account is supposed to lead to less tracking when the algorithm meant to push viewers into a viewing loop is made possible by tracking. Accounts with more information make for more useful demographic data.

                  Not having ads is a benefit of YouTube premium, but less tracking is not a benefit when there is a reason to track even without ads. For better products and surveillance. There is less reasons to not track.

      • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People despise ads, but then they want content for free.

        You have it perfectly backwards: YouTube wants content for free, and to not have to share any but the most pitiful fractions of ad income with the ACTUAL content creators.

        YouTube does not produce content, others do. YouTube has gone out of its way to dick the vast majority of them, especially the smaller ones, to the point that as such, unless you have a Patreon, a website or store of your own, corporate sponsors, merch, or some other side hustle in addition to making YouTube content, you’re literally making content for a fraction of a penny per view, and entirely at your own cost.

        And even then, you’re subject to an algorithm over which you have no control and which can just as fickly ban your content to oblivion as it can raise your content to the multi-million views club. By skipping YouTube ads and finding other ways to support the content creators I enjoy, I help give my creators a financial buffer from the unpredictable vagaries of the algorithm and also withhold reward from YouTube as well.

        When YouTube shared ad revenue with content creators in a much more equal fashion, I did not have a problem with their ads. But several years ago – I want to say six or seven, but it’s been going on for at least ten – YouTube got greedy with the ads AND with becoming incredibly unstable and unreliable for creators in all manner of ways AND decreasing payouts to creators all along the way, at which point it became clear that me watching an ad or not no longer affects the content creators I enjoy at all. And they are the only reason I am on YouTube to begin with.

        (And don’t get me started on all the copyright/demonetization scams there are on YouTube now: I have a friend who got a copyright strike for playing a C scale on a piano because some asshole claimed it and YouTube lets them do it: even when a creator gets views, they can get demonetized at a drop of a hat even for obviously ridiculous claims, and then that revenue goes to the person making the copyright claim. Win/win for everyone except the person who actually made the content.)

        Over the years, YouTube has never failed to excel at two things: server space, and fucking its golden geese, the creators of the actual content, without which no one would be making any money there at all. So get back to us when YouTube recognizes the creators of the gold mine they have in the content hosted there, and once again finds a way to respect for the amount of time and effort and cost that goes into creating that content by sharing revenue with content creators in a more equitable manner.

        TL;DR: Why should I watch ANY YouTube ads at all when I can support content creators via Patreon or a creator’s website and know that a much more equitable amount of that revenue will go straight to the creator of that content, where it belongs?

        • NebLem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          YouTube still pays creators pretty high comparatively (55% of ad revenue according to https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-influencers-get-paid-on-instagram-tiktok-youtube). You are simply getting a service (hosted, searchable, collection of the largest collection of web videos in an extremely nice interface) that costs money even outside of the creator’s cost. For creators they are allowing that 45% cut of ad revenue to get access to the YouTube audience, paid hosting that simply works, nice creator tools, etc.

          You can state that it’s a valueless thing that anyone could replicate, but the evidence is that there aren’t many alternatives that do better. Today we do have things like PeerTube (which I think all creators should consider selfhosting with ads/subscriptions and federating the free stuff after a delay) and joining creator owned video services like Nebula (which could be made even better with federation). Unfortunately, with both you run into the discoverability problem, something creators and their audiences are paying to solve when you are hosting on YouTube.

          I’d take your argument further back on the sourcing of getting content to you - why should you pay for internet service when it’s the content of the videos you watch not the wires that deliver it that have value? If you hacked around your neighbors WIFI to get some free network access, you could zero-cost get something you might not necessarily want to budget for, and you get quite a nice service out of it. Why shouldn’t that be okay when you still Patreon the creators of your videos given your reasoning about YouTube providing no value?

          • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You can state that it’s a valueless thing that anyone could replicate . . .
            I’d take your argument further back on the sourcing of getting content to you . . .
            why should you pay for internet service . . .

            Yeah, except I didn’t say that, nor any of the other strawmen you erected to slam down.

            What asinine aggrandizements and distortions. “Why should you pay for internet service” lol. (Reading your response I am momentarily rethinking it, certainly.)

            Get back to me when you can address what I actually wrote, and not what you need me to have written. Thanks.

    • Engywuck@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think we attribute different meanings to the word “tragedy”. Stuff such as tutorials and documentaries (and, you know, books…) have existed well before YouTube was even conceived and will exist after it disappears, not taking into account that 90% of YouTube is just clickbaity videos with the stupid “surprised face” thumbnail anyway. YouTube is given too much credit for what it is and it is frankly overrated as a source of reliable information.

      The real tragedy is the unhealthy addiction to YouTube of such a huge amount of people seem to have developed.

  • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ohhhh how I wish my favorite youtubers would create their own Peertube instances…
    They’d have complete control of their own content, and any donations could go directly to them.

    I know it’s kind of a pipe dream, but let me dream dammit.

  • locuester@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I enjoy watching YouTube with no ads so I bought premium. I actually bought the family one and share it with 4 others. Personally, I find it to be a great deal.

    I also pay for extra storage (even tho I have a nas) because it’s convenient to have.

    I’m a pirate at heart, have a 3k movie library on Plex and use nefarious to queue download, and I’m a long time crypto nut so I understand privacy and sticking it to the man.

    But I also find great quality of life improvements by simply paying fair prices for good content 🤷‍♂️

    It’s a fun hobby to try and dodge ads and steal and stick it to these companies. But really can be time consuming and gets old (it did at least for me when I got old).