• iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Pretty sure that they are fine with that, they are actively trying to get rid of you.

      • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not in the slightest. They want to have their cake and eat it, meaning they want you on the platform but using it their way. Why else would they put so much effort into this fools errand of subverting ad blockers?

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        If that were true they’d have restricted YouTube to logged in people.

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          What? They are trying to get rid of people with ad-blockers, not random by-passers that view 5/5 ads.

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          Could you explain that? Don’t views or engagements count if you’re not logged in?

          • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I mean if they really didn’t care about random visitors and cared more about making people watch ads. There’s a very simple way to accomplish that, they only let you watch if you’re logged in, and give your account a temp ban if you’re blocking ads. But since they’re not doing that they obviously see some value in anonymous visitors.

            • Victor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m thinking anonymous visitors are harder to track, and ad-watching farms are probably a thing too, I imagine.

              I’m guessing the value is simply a semblance of goodwill, to not be as transparent about their ad-watching mania. Maybe?

      • _s10e@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        No.

        Im pretty sure they are fine with free riders when they are not too many.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      yeah, them needing the money (??) or whatever is one thing, but this arrogant fucking attitude lately is so repugnant. set up a patreon, don’t fucking fight against your users like this. it’s not exactly real TV or oxygen, it’s fucking youtube. it’s 90% garbage anyway

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Asking genuinely, if you were in charge of YouTube, and you don’t think anyone should pay for YouTube, and you don’t think you should run ads, how exactly would you go about paying for the massive amount of engineers and infrastructure needed to keep the lights on?

      • stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        For me personally, I would rather pay for a service than with my time via ads.

        That said the services provided these days are unreliable, gatekept, metered and not enjoyable. Why should I pay for shitty service?

        Therefore I’m only left with one option and my wellies are strapped tight! 🫡

        • AnonTwo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          I…honestly don’t think you’re particularly honest about this.

          Mainly because Youtube red exists and it’s main sell is removing ads, but we already know the answer to that. (Most people don’t actually want to buy the service)

          And it’s not like it’s shitty service. It’s Youtube without ads.

          • kobra@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t need music, I just want ad free YouTube. There isn’t an option for users like me.

            • KnightontheSun@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              yt-dlp A bit of an inconvenience, but if it comes to having to sit through ads to see it on YT, I will download the video to prevent that. I already archive a couple of channels I love.

            • AnonTwo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              …?

              Just use the ad free youtube…and don’t use the music section?

              That’s what I do 90% of the time…

                • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  How much do you really think they would take off of the price tag if you didn’t have music? most similar subs are within the same price range…

                  I always figured youtube music only existed to make the sub more incentivizing. It probably doesn’t even cost them anything they aren’t already spedning on youtube.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well, if YouTube were truly so terrible that you think it offers no real value, you wouldn’t use it at all. If you yourself don’t use it, that’s all well and good, but if you do still use it anyway but block ads, then you’re admitting that it offers some amount of actual value while refusing to pay for it. In that case, it’s hardly unreasonable for YouTube to decide to not take on the cost of offering the service to those that aren’t going to pay for it. You’d probably be more than a little annoyed if your boss told you that you’ll be working extra hours for free.

          • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            There’s nothing inherently valuable to YouTube other than the fact that it’s the default video hosting website because it got there first. You can find other similar websites that provide video hosting that is equivalent, just without the massive audience YouTube has. Keep in mind your argument only works for G rated content because anything that is slightly controversial, even history based content, gets demonetized and there’s an entire other website called patreon that gained popularity because YouTube wasn’t paying its content creators for their work.

            YouTube has lots of options for getting people to pay for their content. If they opt to pursue ad revenue they need to accept that a subset of their audience will use 3rd party apps to get around that. Most people don’t have ad blockers so it’s really only people smart enough to download the plugins. To me this is akin to Reddit pissing in the face of their users for the sake of maximizing profits. I get why they’re doing it, but for every trick they employ to get around ad blockers someone will come up with a workaround and I’ll just download that plugin each time.

              • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                8 months ago

                They’ve already decided that. If they make it too difficult to watch it without ads then I’ll stop watching. No skin off my nose.

        • admiralteal@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          But YouTube Premium is incredibly reliable, unlimited, famously has very little content moderation, and is full of enjoyable content? (i.e., all of YouTube)

          I think you just don’t want to pay.

      • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Honestly?

        Not my monkeys, not my circus.

        I don’t care what YouTube wants to do or how they do it, they need viewers and if they can’t figure out how to keep em, ah well. They gotta create a service that caters to my behavior, not the other way around.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          Well, actually, they have to create a service that caters to people who bring them revenue. If that isn’t you, they don’t have to, and actively shouldn’t, cater to you at all.

          You’re just saying “I don’t have an actual answer” in a roundabout way.

          • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Well, I don’t, but it isn’t my problem.

            Google makes enough money as is, I don’t really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I’ll do other things with my time.

            I don’t really care about Google’s wellbeing. I pay directly to the content creators I like and I hate seeing ads anywhere in my life and I’m willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.

            If they say that the marketing data they scrape from user activity isn’t enough for em, well, sucks to suck I guess.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I’ll do other things with my time.

              Alternatively, they’ll take steps towards a more viable business model, and you’ll also find other things to do with your time.

              I’m willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.

              You can zap all ads forever with a few minutes and a credit card, if you’re willing.

              • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                That’s the thing with ads. They’re a thorn in my side. That Google puts there.

                If you were charging me to remove the thorns you put in my side, I’d be belligerent towards you. And I ain’t gonna give ya money.

                Is YouTube running at a loss, anyway? Or is Google just trying to squeeze more money outta its products? Maybe they should be content with the profits they got. Some quick searching says it generates somewhere in the realm of $29,000,000,000 in revenue annually. I imagine it’s likely they can afford to not be so damn greedy.

                • candybrie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  We have no idea if YouTube operates at a loss or is profitable. Google won’t say. Revenue really tells you very little when you look at what it takes to run something like YouTube. It’s a huge reason why an open competitor is so hard to make work.

          • drkt@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 months ago

            The reason I don’t bring them revenue is because they continue to make the experience worse. Paying isn’t going to make that stop, it’s just going to temporarily shift the bar a little; the bar is however still moving towards a shittier experience for all.

            Why would I look at this and go “Yes, I’ll pay!” There are a lot of services I would genuinely pay for if I didn’t have an impending dread that the service is just about to get worse again regardless of if I pay or not. It’s not like paying is a magic bullet, either, it comes with a ton of different issues like privacy. They still sell your soul to advertisers if you pay them.

            • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Ultimately, they have no obligation to provide you something of value for free, and given that you do apparently use YouTube, they are objectively providing you something of value. They’re completely within their rights to not do that.

              • drkt@feddit.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                8 months ago

                I’ll gloss over that you either missed my point or ignored it; I don’t use YouTube because it’s too shit, actually.

                I don’t pay for any Google services, not that I’m using any with any consistency anymore, for the same reason that I don’t use them anymore. Google cannot be trusted to provide a good service, paying costumer or not. If you punish me for using the free product, why would I ever trust you? Steam doesn’t slap me across the face at every chance it gets when I don’t spend money on their store for a long period of time, yet I have no issue paying for the games I do want to play despite piracy being completely risk-free by comparison.

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

                  If you aren’t getting paid for your content, they’d probably be glad to not have to host it anymore. Anyone with content where it’s worth them hosting it is getting paid.

          • roo@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I paid for Lynda.com, and it could have easily taken in more business if YouTube wasn’t working so hard for Google ads. There are a lot of paid (and free) services that suffer because of YouTubes ad-money business model.

            Netflix could use the extra business. There are plenty of services failing to thrive while YouTube exists. Peertube would be wide open if YouTube went the way of most of Google’s stable of apps. PeerTube is wide open even if YouTube doesn’t go away anyway.

            People genuinely hate ads. It’s a high degree of enshitification. YouTube could divide into paid content and free content in a simple Freemium model.

            Or, add third tier with ads, which any user can opt out of in the same way contributers can. I’d be happy to click subscribe on an ad free experience with less content available to me.

            Or, add an option for a couple of free tier items per month, week, or day. Like Medium’s business model.

            It’s not hard to stop sucking!

      • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        In 2022, Youtube was getting $14 ARPU for free users (from ads) and $120 ARPU for premium users. With premium users contributing so much more to their bottom line, one would think they would strive to keep those users subscribed, but instead YouTube started raising prices and even stopped honoring the grandfathered price points their long term subscribers (like myself) were at. I would have kept paying for my family subscription indefinitely at that price point - which is still several times higher than the revenue they would get from me as an ad-consuming customer - but they opted to not allow that, so they lost all the revenue they’d been getting from me entirely.

        Youtube specific stats are hard to find, but Alphabet is one of the most profitable companies worldwide, with a profit of just under $80 billion in 2022, so your question is honestly irrelevant. The status quo would have been more than enough to keep the lights on. This isn’t about making ends meet; it’s about getting as much profit as they can.

        Even so, the person you replied to didn’t say YouTube shouldn’t run ads or charge for a subscription. They were talking about themselves and their willingness to watch ads or subscribe.

        And because enough people aren’t like that person or like me, YouTube is going to continue to grow their revenue and their user base - for now, at least.

      • rebul@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t mind paying for YouTube content. I do mind their data harvesting, however. Figured out that my life isn’t diminished at all without Youtube.

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m perfectly fine if commercial platforms like YouTube go out of business. This will create space for smaller platforms run by users as a hobby instead of a business, which I think would lead to a healthier media ecosystem. Honestly, advertising is not a healthy activity for society. If it were up to me, it would be banned.

        • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Why would they? It’s not like it’s going to be bringing customers to their other services and Google isn’t a charity.

          • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            “Just don’t worry about revenue at all” is the best kind of secret genius business strategy that I come to Lemmy for.

      • _number8_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        by being owned by google? treating users with respect and running graceful and non-invasive ads? (maybe still image banner ads only? ratchet up the tension on the advertiser ghouls, not the end users?) having something akin to a patreon? simply eating the cost because it’s a public service? (not to mention the public service of draining the bank accounts of VC/investor/silicon valley vampires)

  • Thteven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    112
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hahahahaha, do they know that using it without the ad blocker is worse than whatever else they’re going to do? I’d rather stare at 30 seconds of black screen than a 5 second ad, lmao.

    • aceshigh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      8 months ago

      Having a blank screen will make me less angry than seeing a long advertisement. Not to mention, I come from the days of dial up. I can wait a bit until I view the video.

    • decisivelyhoodnoises@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Well actually they can do much more, like for example decreasing quality to lets say 144p

      I’m not saying that adblockers will not be able to bypass it, maybe there will be a solution as well, but wanted to say that the blank screen waiting is not their only weapon

      • Thteven@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If it was really that little I wouldn’t be so up in arms about it. I put a video on yesterday and had 30 seconds of ads before it started and then another 30 seconds of ads after a minute and a half. Fuck that nonsense.

        • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Usually the only thing I find YouTube uses for is those short 30 seconds of a video I have searched for. Like how to DIY something or quick, visualdemonstrations of concepts.

          As bad as YouTube has gotten, it’s already super common for me to skip over the first four or five search results, which are usually YouTube links, and just go to like the 4th or 5th one down, and fine. It’s just as useful. If I was blind or couldn’t read, that would suck, but I can live without YouTube like, I mostly already do, and used to, too.

  • NaoPb@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    No YouTube. It is YOU that is stuck with ME and I will make YOUR experience worse.

  • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can’t possibly make it worse than shoving ads from hate groups. On my computer, I use Firefox with adblock, but on my phone and tablet I had been using the YouTube app until a few days ago. Google decided to show me a PragerU ad on mobile, so I decided to switch to Firefox mobile to watch YouTube. And the app either moved or removed the ‘don’t show this ad’ selection.

  • dalë@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    They couldn’t possibly make the experience than it already is without an ad blocker.

    No adblock = No youtube

    • HiddenLychee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      7 months ago

      Right? Having an ad blocker means my video gets slowed down by a few seconds, not having an ad blocker means I get to watch a 30 second ad from a local politician telling me about how we need to get rid of fornicators. I think I know my choice lmao

  • einlander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    8 months ago

    They had a long time to make the ad watching process less painful, or adding actual value to a premium subscription, but they are doing everything to make YouTube worse.

    • _number8_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      i could maybe start to swallow the actual tech getting worse (just like everything else is lately) but this arrogant, odious attitude they’re putting on lately is so obscene and anti-consumer. it’s like it’s their god-given right to serve us ads and our solemn duty to consume them.

    • Blue and Orange@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      YouTube premium should have built-in sponsorblock. That’s one of the ways that free clients are literally better than the paid service, mostly on mobile. Let me change the theme to different colours, let me show/hide the “shorts” and “create” tabs. In general, just give me the features that YouTube revanced has on the official app.

    • stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      If the price was like $5 per month and it gave you no ads and 4K steaming it might be worth it. But at the current pricing it just isn’t good value since YouTube doesn’t produce content like other streaming services (and creators still have to rely on sponsorships for their livelihood regardless of whether the viewer is a premium subscriber) that justifies paying the higher prices for the service.

      Instead their attack on their customers rather than just making the service valuable enough to pay for makes me never want to give them a cent.

    • VelvetStorm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I had the paid service until they jacked up the price for no reason at all. The second they announced the price hike for no reason I cancled my sub and have just been using a third party app to watch it on my phone or ublock on firefox

    • TangledHyphae@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s even more weird all that invested time into people who are going to find ways to block them either way, instead of focusing on their userbase that doesn’t use them. Seems like they are rummaging through the couch cushions for pennies at this rate.

      • 🖖USS-Ethernet@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Since this whole debacle started, they’ve just made ad blockers more prevalent to people who didn’t know about them. Ad blocker use is actually up now compared to when they started making this a big deal. So, in a way, they actually screwed themselves.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Considering they can use this knowledge to apply it to the entire Google ecosystem, I’d say they aren’t wasting money in learning about new ways to fuck us over.

  • tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    7 months ago

    These shenanigans have me rapidly transitioning from “I don’t want to see your annoying ads” to “I don’t want you to make any money at all”.

    • vermyndax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m already there, and I’m applying this thinking to every site - including the one hosting this article.

      • tinkeringidiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Same, I view the whole internet through uBlock and a pihole, so my value as an “impression” is virtually zero.

        I’m not against for-profit websites making some money (and I run my own website, which generates a whopping $0), but Google has jumped the shark with their sketchy malware bullshit, and I’m starting to root for that organization to die.

        • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I mean what’s the difference between me not watching ads and me watching ads but still not buying their shit because I don’t need it? I go out of my way to not buy anything I get ads for, so all it does is waste my time. I’m saving the advertisers money because they don’t need to pay to show me ineffective ads.

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah, I’ve been on YouTube with ads and if it weren’t for the Skip Ads button I could not tolerate it. Try to watch a 10 minute video and it starts with a 3 minute ad. How is that remotely reasonable?

  • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 months ago

    The ads make it pretty bad. They’d have to work really hard to make it worse without ads.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Wait until they make it so you either have to wait 20 minutes to watch a video or turn off your adblocker.

      Because they can do that if they want and they will if they feel it’s worth it to them.

  • someguy@pleroma.someotherguy.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    @TangledHyphae @technology
    Then, use a program that is a different YouTube Front End.

    On Android phones, you can download NewPipe or LibreTube from the F-Droid store. These will allow you to subscribe to channels and to watch without ads.

    You can use Invidious instances or you can setup your own to watch through a website.
    Invidious Instances: https://docs.invidious.io/instances
    Invidious GitHub Code: https://github.com/iv-org/invidious

    Because YouTube does not pay most creators enough to live on, please support your favorite YouTubers using Patreon, Locals, or wherever.