1761

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Jordan117@lemmy.world 121 points 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 69 points 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.

[-] knobbysideup@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year 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 3 points 1 year 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 53 points 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.

[-] 418teapot@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I would have more sympathy for Youtube if 1. it wasn't the de-facto standard where essentially all video media gets uploaded to (which Youtube itself has done everything in its power to make happen) and 2. the company that owned it didn't also own the most popular phone OS, most popular search engine, most popular email provider, most popular ad network, most popular maps, most popular online office suite, most popular airline booking, 2nd most popular cloud hosting... The list goes on

Until a federated solution like peertube gains more traction I have no problem paying content creators directly via patreon, and do everything in my power to not pay Google a dime. Trust me, they can afford it just fine.

[-] Traister101@lemmy.today 36 points 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 20 points 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.

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 2 points 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

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Wow I didn't know. Thanks!

[-] batmangrundies@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The issue is that ads on YouTube used to be fairly innocuous. Now I get batshit conspiracies pushed, non-stop Aussie gambling ads and so on.

Where I was once happy to sit through some food ads, or some tourism ads to support the platform. I'm not happy being blasted with non-stop, low-quality propoganda.

Granted the $22 family plan for me and my wife has worked well. We both use youtube music extensively as well. It's the only streaming service I pay for, the only other subscription I have is for a VPN.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 15 points 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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

YouTube is greedy. They make plenty of money without stuffing in more ads and pulling crap like this. I don’t use an ad blocker, but I’ve considered it (or just dumping YouTube completely) because they have really ramped up the ad interruptions. I’d subscribe if they had a cheap YouTube-only plan. But they don’t. You either have to pay for bundled music or TV and I don’t want or need either.

Yes, there are business costs, but they don’t produce the content they air, and their payout to those who do produce the content is a relative pittance. Their infrastructure is shared among other Google products, so it’s not like they’re having to pay for all their server racks out of a single budget. And I’m sure Google is trying to figure out how to train AI on all the content that’s posted there. Not to mention all the pirated content posted to YouTube that Google is making money from, without compensating the creators or copyright holders.

If was running a competing business like Facebook, or Amazon, I would seriously consider ramping up a competing product.

[-] centof@lemm.ee 11 points 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.

[-] MysticKetchup@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago
  1. The amount of ads on YouTube only seems to get more and more invasive over time. And I'd have less of a problem with them if they didn't keep showing me the same ads over and over and over again.

  2. Even with all that, I would pay (subscription wise, not like I haven't rented/bought movies from them) if I actually knew where the money was going. YouTube is surely expensive to operate, but we don't know how much money it costs to actually run it vs how much money is extracted via executives and shareholders.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 10 points 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.

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.

[-] icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

No ofence but if thats your pov on the situation (a very valid one btw) you would be better of subscribing to youtube premium. You suport them directly, and dont really get the short end of the stick on mobile like evryone else that isnt paying or isnt a power user. They still colect your data incluiding browsing and watching habits, but you wont get bombarded with terrible ads and get some nice perks as a plus.

[-] Critical_Insight@feddit.uk 4 points 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.

[-] Jordan117@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'll just switch to a Indian ip-address and buy a cheap premium

I've thought about doing this, but worry about it fucking up my recommendations, which I'm actually pretty happy with. Do you know if that's an issue?

[-] Critical_Insight@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

I don't know, but I doubt it's an issue. Your recommendations are probably mostly based on your watch history and not location.

[-] BReel@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year 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.

[-] Engywuck@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] coffinwood@feddit.de 0 points 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
1761 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

59148 readers
2453 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS