YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.::Google is increasing the prices of YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium subscriptions in some regions, right after blocking ad-blockers.
Or you can use any of these solutions:
- Android
- iOS
- Yattee with this guide
- (Adding Piped/Invidious website to Homescreen)
- Web
- Desktop
- FreeTube
- (Using any of the web solutions as PWAs)
- TV
- Android TV
- Apple TV
- Yattee with this guide
No mention of revanced? It’s a great option, has sponsorblock and all
I feel like I’m experiencing deja vu. Wasn’t there a thread just like this yesterday?
Edit: There was!
They seem to be increasing in frequency. If this is only the second one you’ve seen in the last 24h then you’re lucky.
ReVanced is by far one of the best solutions.
I have a question for people using sponsorblock. Why? How do you expect a content creator to pay the bills? I use an adblock because fuck Google but content creators pick up sponsorships specifically because YT pays like shit.
I’m only speaking for myself here, and I’m certain you’re not going to like the answer I have to offer. That’s not my problem. I don’t like being advertised to. I don’t like others telling me what I’ll like or what to do. I’m a monster, I know, I also take pee breaks when commercials come on tv as well and I usually arrive late to movies so I can skip the previews.
Seriously though, I really don’t care how they pay their bills, they’re a dancing monkey on the sidewalk that I enjoy for a couple minutes and move on. If they can’t afford to keep making content and quit, I’ll just move onto the next channel that’s still producing. It’ll never run out, just like there’s always going to be someone who sits through the ads or actually buys whatever their shilling. At the end of the day, it’s their responsibility to make sure their shits handled, not mine. If they can’t pay their bills, they should probably do something that offers a more steady income stream.im not obligated to give them my time in exchange for them getting money. They get my time in exchange for me being entertained, that’s it. Maybe if they made content for enjoyment instead of money, they’d make better content.
Before we get to name calling, I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either
I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either
I love basement dwellers. Moms cooking, pops paying the internet bills and he thinks he’s not going to see ads with his hands on cheetos, watching Netflix and ordering on food delivery app he subliminally remembers. But they were totally not from the ads.
That’s an awful lot of assumptions and insults coming through to someone who’s just answering the question honestly. I’m not naive enough to think I’m advertisement proof, I just get tired of them and avoid them where I can. I’m failing to see what your point is
Just because you’re honest doesn’t mean you get a cookie. Your take a isn’t just shit, you’re a fucking thief stealing from mostly ordinary people who are trying to find new ways to make money because the traditional economy fails us. You can take your whining and go fuck yourself as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t want to watch sponsorships that help people make more money then turn the fucking content off. Entitled twat.
So many gigantic hypocrites on this site. Any time success for workers requires even a tiny amount of time all you hypocrites on this site suddenly turn into penny pinching fuckwads. bunch of fake leftist tools. It wasn’t enough for you to block ads so now you’re also blocking sponsorships, so that tells me you think you’re entitled to free work from others which makes you no different from some corporate capitalist shithead.
I don’t think thief is the right word. Would you consider someone who stands by a busker listening to their whatever and not throwing a coin in the hat, a thief as well? I get your point, I just think you went about it the wrong way. Who has the better claim to entitlement, the person who already got paid for the sponsorship based on their existing performance metrics, or me and my time? Are you a thief for taking a piss during a commercial break? Are you a thief for arriving late to movies to intentionally skip the previews? Where’s the line here? I’m also not sure of where my hypocrisy comes in either. I have no fantasies about other people wanting to hear what I have to say, especially if it’s going to cost them time or money. I’m not blocking advertisements and expecting people to watch mine. I don’t have anything to advertise. If I wanted to make a shitty YouTube video to entertain people, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to pretend that it’s going to put food on my table. My real job does that. I’m not so vain as to think I deserve other people’s time and attention. What makes Linus tech tips entitled to my time, or Mr beast, or whoever else is churning out mediocre content purely for profit?
They’re already getting paid for putting it in their video. Sometimes the sponsorships are on a “per signups” basis and I have never once come across a YouTube sponsorship for something that I would actually have a use for. They’re either already getting paid or they weren’t getting my money anyway so I might as well skip it. I don’t need to hear a pitch for something I don’t want/need
I don’t care who’s serving the ads, I don’t want to watch ads period. I will pay for the content where possible though. I dont think youtube taking 45% considering the crazy infrastructure provided is that strange. Maybe 45% is still too much, but i don’t think 55% sounds like “shit”.
I forgot that the people I watch are far less mainstream. They survive on Patreon and sponsorships because they’re constantly demonetized, thus my perception it pays shit.
That’s fair enough. Didn’t think of that angle which is a pretty relevant one considering how easy it seems to be to get demonetized.
Most ads are for products in another country so even if I hypothetically wanted it I can’t get it so why waste my time on it. And if they are multinational companies I usually don’t want anything to do with it. I also just don’t want to be advertised to. It’s wasting my time because 99.99% of the time it’s irrelevant to me.
Counter-ask: how does watching the sponsored content help them?
They’ve been paid initially, people who use sponsor block are way less likely to sign up for the service.
Watching it does literally nothing for them if you don’t sign up… The sponsor won’t even see metrics of who skipped the sponsored portion
It just seems like overkill to me tbh. The content creators I watch need sponsors to get by, so I’ll take a peek at what they’re offering in good faith. If I don’t like it I just skip to the end of the bit, or leave the video since a few put them at the end. You’re not messing with corporate profits or anything.
Ok, but you can set it up to not auto skip. You could just get a button to skip to the end of the promotion - I think that’s the default even
But I’ve literally only looked into a product sponsored by a creator once, and once I saw the price tag I clicked off. And that was after I installed sponsor block
Watch this, please:
This didn’t help me, I understand advertising. My questioning sponsorblock apparently didn’t properly convey that a huge part of my confusion is that you can just… Skip that part. It’s not like rolled ads and even then I already mentioned support for adblocker.
Like it’s overkill, obsessive type feel to me “I hate advertising so much I want everything to be automatic so I don’t even process for a 10th of a second that I may have consumed an ad” while most people are like “Oh it’s the sponsor” click click and move on. And hey maybe I see a it’s a product I DO use like Displate, so the discount code is useful.
Is the question “why automate when you can manually do it?” I think that’s where the confusion may lie. Why wouldn’t you automate it if you were going to do it anyway?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/_–LvdAHfVo?si=-dfOn86mIPHvKCQU
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
YT does not pay like shit. A lot of the time sponsorships are much more targeted and interesting than YouTube ads.
That being said I mainly dislike bad ads. Good, well targeted ads that don’t destroy your eardrums for products that interest me seem nice. But they don’t tend to exist.
+1 for yattee on IOS. Until we can get ublock origin on iphones, but that’s another story
uyouplus and sideloadly/trollstore is great combo
‘rightfully’ is doing a lot of lifting here.
Or you update your uBlock Origin blocklists and declare YouTube the war.
Considering a DNS block
That doesn’t work AFAIK. It only works when the ads are served by a 3rd party.
Yep. I tried doing this with Hulu’s self-serving ads and I blocked enough domains that it just quit working
Doesn’t work. I have network wide DNS filtering, but that alone doesn’t stop YT ads.
If you have a link to a GitHub host file for that, I’d definitely take a peak.
Otherwise, uBlock and *Pipe apps.
Try blocking the ads.
You will block the video serving domains as well :)YT/Google aint that stupid and knows how to bundle both for your convenience.
I never see Vivaldi mentioned in these. Yes, it’s chromium based, but I have not seen a single YouTube ad since they implemented built-in ad block many years ago. Without the need for extensions, plug-ins, or user managed block lists.
Vivaldi is proprietary garbage
Removed by mod
What? Who talks about X?
yeah, ive been using vivaldi and only very recently did i see my player diabled with ubo off but if i disable ubo and put vivaldi’s blocking option to just block trackers, that does the trick tho the ad starts with a black screen but the skip button instantly appears under .5 seconds or the video starts
I’m willing to pay for content.
I’m not willing to give Google money, or any proprietary solutions.
I judge adverts to be a waste of limited human life. I hope that industry can change.
So then you’re unwilling to pay for the content
I mean, we can’t act surprised that YouTube needs to somehow afford the infrastructure to serve content? Adblockers caught on & youtube cracked down.
More technical solutions will be created in response, and those wi be picked up by a small majority causing the cycle to start over once more.
Where was Google’s concern for paying for infrastructure in the past? Google choose to bleed money which made it harder for smaller competitors to compete and take a share of the users, and now Google wants to have their cake and eat it too. Too damn bad.
I am unwilling to pay for the content while Google is where the content is. Odysee seemed shady to me so I stopped using it. Floatplane is proprietary and I’m trying to kick the nasty habit of using proprietary software, I don’t want to start using new ones. I used to pay to listen to a podcast but I got tired of the content. I donate to Wikipedia.
YouTube has been in the red since day 1. Now Google wants their payback. OK. Seems fair. But I don’t have to participate.
Everybody acting like Google is taking away a basic human right, or somehow “taxing” them is getting exhausting.
Facebook is up to even more shenanigans, proposing to charge users to keep ads off the screen. Again, fine. I don’t have to use FB.
“But muh free content!”
It was very damned long ago that “content” was what you could see at the movie theater, see on your 4-channel TV selection or grab at the library.
/old_man_rant
Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.
I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google’s rules, I’d have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry… Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.
YouTube has been in the red since day 1. Now Google wants their payback. OK. Seems fair.
It’s not fair, it’s literally illegal under antitrust law. The DOJ has been accused of “taking a nap” and not enforcing those laws for 20 years… but they’re awake now. Which is probably part of why Google is suddenly changing course. They’re involved in a few antitrust investigations as it is and don’t want any more.
You can’t run a company at a loss leader until nearly all your competition is dead and then start charging more than customers are willing to pay (or showing more ads than customers are willing to watch).
I’m happy to pay for video content - but I won’t pay the prices YouTube is charging and their ads are even worse.
It’s not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?
Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.
How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I’m afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven’t left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.
Paying for services is normal. It’s unrealistic not to. It’s unproductive to pretend otherwise.
Google offered content for free and so played a part in making generation(s?) of users expect content for free.
I used to watch films in cinema before they started playing them on TV but now I 99.8% don’t care about them, or shows. I use Crunchyroll for a couple of anime but most of my content is only on YouTube.
Then don’t watch the content. But in lieu of a open source, non profit, market dominating video platform thus means not watching videos.
Even if that open source platform existed it would require it to be more or equally profitable for creators to reach a point where people upload to both platforms.
I’ll keep watching the content, thanks.
Floatplane is owned by a YouTuber more about capitalism than tech at this point
Look at nebula, the creator owned network (from what I’ve heard about it)
You’re getting unfairly downvoted. I agree with the negative sentiment around Google but the only semi-alternative is nebula but they obviously don’t have the same amount of content. It’s not reasonable to expect YouTube to operate for free
Thank you, the unfortunate truth is that we’re a community of people who just left a platform for their insatiable greed so its to be expected that when you say that companies should be able to make money within reason people get tight about it
The other problem is people treating small/medium content creators like they’re some corporate entity fucking people over when they’re not. The entitlement and sheer hypocrisy on this site is incredible to see. I’m specifically talking about people blocking sponsorships here.
FOSS has created this childish expectation that other people should spend their time creating shit for lemmy-type nerds for free, but that is not sustainable in a capitalist economy. Software only gets away with it because software devs make a comfortable living with enough free time to work on FOSS, or they actually get paid to work on it by some corp.
People applying the same expectation to creatives disgust me. A lot of smaller channels are not rolling in money, they’re making enough for a decent living or some side cash. And they earned that. There’s a huge difference between that and some giant media corporation ripping people off for content. Blocking sponsorships is immoral and downright criminal imo, and it disgusts me to see so many people trying to normalize stealing from other workers. Especially in our modern gig economy where many of these people turned to YouTube because they got fucked over by a recession or COVID.
Ads are annoying but I’ll deal with being annoyed if it means someone gets compensated for work that I enjoyed. The sheer narcissism of believing you’re entitled to free content from creators is enraging to be.
Youtube by itself produces almost no content. All content comes from content creators on the platform, which are getting severely underpaid by Youtube. If Youtube actually paid them their fair share, this argument would be somewhat valid.
I disagree, i think they’re getting a fair cut? A channel as large as LTT has stated that YouTube ads make up nearly 30% of their revenue.
30% isn’t a ton, but when you consider that they can add brand deals on top of that (which they get 100% of) creators can walk away with a decent chunk. Additionally, when you look at the rev split it’s actually the creator getting 55% (45% in the case of shorts). Bigger channels probably get better deals too, as is the case with Twitch as well.
IMO this all seems fair, puts a heavy reliance on Google which is a just criticism however to ignore the costs of storing immense amounts of data (500hrs of video uploaded/minute), making it available, and the infrastructure associated (bandwidth, global cdn, etc) is not
Only big creators will get brand deals, that’s the problem with you making assumptions based on LTT. And that’s why I think people are enormous hypocrites for blocking sponsorships on smaller channels. Until we live in a socialist utopia, dealing with a 30 second ad isn’t that fucking much to ask to compensate someone you just used for entertainment.
One of the most popular on the platform is by definition an outlier
Did you read the rest?
Also, yes it’s an outlier but the only example i have on hand of a YouTuber sharing their revenue streams so
Aww. Are the greedy megacorporations upset that consumers are being greedy in return? Poor megacorporations. :c
All these billions in revenue are not enough :(
well i for one ain’t paying shit to google, nor am i watching any ads 👍
If it comes down to it, I have no issue just not using Youtube ever again. FireFox and Ublock are your friend.
Preach!!
This is why Google has been using their browser monopoly to push their “Web Integrity API”. If that gets adopted, they can fully control the client side and prevent all ad blocking.
Thankfully, Firefox is still a thing. If that comes out, it’s going to be a hell of a lot more popular.
… and dependent on Google ; they may either push that API into FF or push something different so bad that FF would lose even more users.
Thank fuck
Delayed… For now
Google also said they would cancel there plan to roll out FLoC after significant pushback a while ago, only to renamed it as Ad Topics and roll them out anyway when no one is looking. If Google do the same with web integrity API, I wouldn’t be surprised anymore.
To be fair, FLoC had signifient issues and could be used to fingerprint users. Google’s whole point of FLoC was to get rid of third party cookies, to stop sites from fingerprinting users and tracking them throughout the web, so FLoC didn’t really solve the problem in that regard. With Ad Topics, only a limited subset of topics are presented to the advertisers, and fake data is injected, making that fingerprinting less likely.
Still haven’t gotten any on Firefox with Ublock Origin. The usual explanation is that it rolls out in stages, but I’ve nothing weeks later.
Nah there was an article that said that it’s fully deployed now.
Your ad block solution must be filtering it out appropriately.
I’ve had to do the full purge and refresh filters thing.
I just have all my YouTube subscriptions feeding into an RSS feed. Haven’t gotten a single ad.
deleted by creator
You can use a rss reader app that works on the desktop like
or if you want to go all out - setup something like freshrss / miniflux on a selfhosted server.
As for getting Rss feeds from Youtube. I think there are some browser extensions you can use. If you have the newpipe app on android , you can visit any Youtube channel and it will have an option to get the Rss feed on the top right. You can copy that link to your RSS reader and it will start showing new videos.
Are you logged in to YouTube on Firefox? Anonymous visitors with ublock origin doesn’t seem to get the nag.
Yep, logged in and haven’t seen a thing.
Kinda glad my uBlock Origin is still working.
This should be illegal, actually in Europe it’s about to be…
what is illegal? Havinadblockcks, cracking down onadblocks or upping the price on the software after ““forcing”” people to move to it.
Anti Ad-Blocking Software would be (and arguably, already are) illegal as not only do ads count as a form of malware, but Anti-AdBlocks run scripts on YOUR machines without your consent, and thus are ALSO malware.
1000% in the TOS that you agreed to when you signed up, or implicitly by continuing to use the site
National laws trump TOS
The American brain can’t comprehend this
A significant number of Americans want to overturn the Enlightenment for being too woke.
Who could have POSSIBLY seen this coming?
Enshittification must be stopped
Yeah, no… it’s already overpriced.
Paramount + £6.99 Netflix £10.99 (standard) Youtube £12
Makes no sense… they don’t have anything like the production overheads. Stuff like Star Trek and Stranger Things are expensive. ‘10 greatest cat videos’ is not.
Heck, they don’t even pay a good fraction of their bandwidth because they put caching box in your ISP location to reduce loads. This is a huge privilege as ISPs won’t let any random companies run equipments for free in their network, which is one of a huge barrier for any YouTube competitors.
They might be allowing them to run the boxes for free, but the ISPs are saving money on bandwidth, too.
Get enough users for the ISP to care and they’ll work with you. Otherwise, you probably don’t have all that many users to begin with, so the overhead that maintaining and distributing these boxes would create wouldn’t be worth it anyway.
Youtube expenses is revenue share with creators and hosting untold hours of video, over 500 hours uploaded per minute, that others just don’t have to deal with.
you forgot to add spotify which is about 12$
YouTube Music is included with YouTube Premium though so no need for Spotify if you have YTP.
yes. thats why i was saying they forgot spotify price in their calculation its still pretty ok price for ytp in relation to spotifys new price jump.
Ah I see, fair point
It “makes sense” in that, unlike those two, YT has to deal with thousands of hours of video being uploaded to their servers every minute. What they don’t pay in streaming rights, they pay in storage and bandwidth costs, plus a couple of peanuts for “moderation”, which is probably more expensive in the long run
Depends on how much you use it. I watch Youtube pretty much every day for at least an hour, while using Netflix or other streaming services about once evey few months. I use Spotify every day too, just because I like their app more in some ways.
If I had to choose, I’d swap my Netflix and Disney+ subscriptions for YouTube. I think I watch YouTube videos about three times as much as Netflix and Disney.
Well it also includes a streaming music service which are normally $10/m on their own.
I already pay for Spotify. They knew exactly what they were doing when they lumped that shit in YouTube premium
They should offer it seperately.
IIRC, YouTube Music is also offered as a standalone service, Atleast in some countries. However, the difference b/w YouTube Premium and just the Music service comes out to be miniscule, so folks just pay for the former.
No, I want Premium without Music. It’s not offered anywhere.
Same thing with Amazon. I want Prime without Prime Video. It’s not offered either.
Oh, I understand now, especially the second one. The only thing from Amazon’s product line worth using to me is the Prime delivery service. I can’t give two hoots about their Prime Music( which I lost respect for after it denied to run for me on any browser on Linux for some reason) or Prime Video.
I can’t see the value in using youtube for music… it’s not like I can watch music videos in my car. That’s worth $0 to me, and I imagine the majority. Spotify is better… or apple music if you’re on the fruit side.
Youtube music doesn’t have music videos, not sure what you are talking about. It’s just a clone of play music after they shut it down.
Fwiw, it’s not videos, it’s a Spotify clone.
If you’ve already got a solution for ad-free music in your car, sure, obviously. Not everybody has that though.
If some day I cannot block ads on YouTube I’ll go to Patreon or any other platform that gives creators a real share of what I’m paying. Google will not see my money.
Only issue would be getting the creators to move. That nay be more difficult than said with some. I already follow some on rumble, I only stay on YouTube as others haven’t.
Otherwise I agree
I was under the impression that YT Premium paid creators the same per view as YT with ads. Is this not the case?
Some creators have said that the cut they get from premium viewers is higher than that of ad based (SpiffingBrit for example, in his YouTube download exploit video).
If that still holds true is unknown.
Linus (LTT) also said that one premium view was worth significantly more than ad based.
I don’t believe so. As I understand it, all Premium money goes into a big bucket. Then, views/watchtime/etc. are used to calculate what percentage of the pie a given creator will receive.
Yeah, so if you watch one creator a lot then they get a lot more
*you pay YouTube for the content they didn’t make or they turn the thumbscrews.
This is misleading : a substantial part is distributed to the content creators. Traditionally the YouTube cut is alleged to be rather low.
Because it costs nothing to run data centers, employ thousands of people, distribute exabytes of data.
enshittification everywhere.
Is enshittification the new word for late stage capitalism?
Enshittification, also called chokepoint capitalism, is a term coined by Corey Doctorow (sp?) that lays out a common pattern with platforms in a capitalist system where:
- Platform builds a product to entice users to it for little to no cost to the user (Google search, Facebook, Amazon shopping, etc)
- Once users are locked in, make the experience worse in ways that increase profits for business partners (Google ads partners, etc)
- Once business partners are locked in, screw them over to rake back as many profits for the platform owner.
Sounds like it is.
Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing.
(Waits for down votes… )
This is healthy for the ecosystem, it makes it possible for other video platforms to compete, and be sustainable. Google providing the loss leader in video streaming makes it difficult for other platforms to exist, and sustain themselves, because they don’t have Google’s war chest.
So it’s going to be a difficult transition, but now there is wiggle room for other platforms to exist. And with 1 gigabit, and 10 gigabit home internet connections becoming more common globally, we have options for more interesting gorilla distributed video streaming.
Will the gorillas go door to door with a pad or something with a video on it, or are you thinking memory sticks?
Both services are available, and I recommend paying the extra for the ‘please dont rip my arms off’ extra.
More like IPFS. If you have a bunch of gigabit residential internet connections distributed globally. That’s a reasonable approximation of a video streaming platform.
I’m not saying I have a good solution for today, but all the components are there to build a competitor to YouTube, and now if the price barrier going up, there’s room for whatever organization competes with YouTube to get some sustainable income
Significant portions of the US are still on copper cable or DSL, I don’t think there’ll be widespread fiber, let alone 10G for at least 10-15 years
Agreed, I’m in northern Canada and only the capital city of my territory has cable internet, the outskirts of the city and the smaller communities are stuck with ancient and capped (300GB per month) DSL at 15 Mbps while I get unlimited 100/10 Mbps for $140 per month. I’d kill for symmetrical 100/100 so I could access my plex server outside of my house, let alone 1 Gbps fiber internet.
I’d guess we’re a minimum of 5-10 years away from fiber internet sadly, we just don’t have the population to make it profitable enough for the greedy ass telecom companies, even with the extra government funding the telecom gets for serving our low population territory.
You’re right I hope. Especially about gorillas sharing video! We need a guerilla movement to get these gorillas some cell phones and I’ve been saying it for years!
10Gb to the home? Where have you seen this, and.for how much? I had no idea that was a thing for residential
64.75 Swiss Franks per month from my ISP, it’s the same price as their 1 Gb/s and 25 Gb/s plans.
I’m currently still on 1Gb/s because buying the faster router, switch and network cards to make use of more is kind of expensive
I get 2gbps to my home in singapore for $30USD a month.
10gbps is available in a few places globally, but its becoming more common. i.e. https://www.utopiafiber.com/10-gbps-info/
Wow that’s nice! I get 600/25mbps for $80USD in the US, coax 😞 wish fiber-to-the-premise was a possibility in my neighborhood
Even that’s twice what I get. The prices here are disgusting… I get 300mbps for $100… Yay monopolies!
My parents get 25/1 for ~$150 since there’s no other options, nor is there any plans to run new cable to get them better internet.
https://www.advancedstream.com/brighamcity
10gbps in utah for $200 a month…
I imagine korea has some great prices too…
but the important thing here is the trend, data is becoming available, data centers don’t matter as much as we become more interconnected ourselves.
This is a really good point, I never thought about this. While we still haven’t seen the anti-adblock message from YT (Firefox + uBlock Origin on Linux Mint), we’ve been using Nebula more and more lately. It would be great if there was a similar service for quality kids content. As it stands we stick to just a couple YT channels for our 2.5 year old because of how much absolute, irredeemable garbage there is targeted at kids there. I can’t imagine how shit the ads are for them.
I have no idea what the content is like on YouTube Kids but on my YouTube app when I cast kids stuff the display ads on the phone side are often for mobile games with really creepy shit like dead Paw Patrol characters and grieving Elsa.
I’d never leave a little one attended with an iPad with YouTube on their own
No, not really. I get what you mean but the truth is, that unsustainable practices should’ve been capped, and made illegal BEFORE there was a monopoly. Now that there is one, they can do what they want. Google aren’t idiots. They know FULL well they can do this. All of this is calcualted.
This is what I’ve been saying, youtube providing the service for free is what’s been preventing competitors to exist.
