this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
88 points (87.9% liked)

Technology

58451 readers
5550 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
 

I mean, I dont actually mind ads... within reason. But over the past few years I have watched less and less youtube content due to the ratio of ads to the actual bloody content I wanted to view.

One recent video about a bloke's guitar amp was great. The ads not so much. I had to view two lots of 30 second unskippable ads before the 9 minute video would start. The guy starts this amazing guitar solo half way through, only to be cut off by TWO MORE bleeding adverts. The solo continues, the guy shreds it out then the video ends.... two more adverts, 30 seconds each no skips (I reloaded the browser in the end which seemed to trigger a 2 minute ad at the start of another video).

Use Piped I hear you cry. Great idea. But how long is that going to last? I am certain that youtube and their parent company are feverishly pushing their engineers to find ways through, around, over and under any tool that stops them making money. The real solution is to tell everyone we know to use other platforms as much as possible and avoid Youtube. Tell every creator we love and respect to diversify where their content goes.

I know people here dont like the politics and trolling that happen on other platforms but thats because they're insulated. With more exposure those platforms will tackle it. Or quarantine it. The other danger is if we dont diversify our viewing and creator hosting then Alphabet will just hold a monopoly and strangle any other real chance.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 43 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nah, most people don't give a fuck. If the method of bypassing ads gets too intricate, they'll cave.

Seriously, the vast majority of people just let the ads run, or even watch them. They're either unconcerned, or lazy, sometimes both.

[–] ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

We've tasted ad-less video entertainment and found it good. That said, for at least half a century OTA network TV required watching ads and most people didn't care much because they didn't have to pay cash for the service. I think many/most people have the capacity to tolerate ads to get what they want.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It won't do shit.

Most people will accept Google's cock up their ass and just deal with the ads. Everyone else will find new services or figure out how to continue using ad blockers.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Their adblock blocker doesn't work in incognito mode. The overlay and whatnot just will not populate if you use an incognito browser window. You have to sign in every time you open a new tab, but this has been working fine for me on Firefox.

[–] Monkeyhog@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

No, most people really don't care.

[–] missingno@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago

Youtube has a captive audience that isn't going anywhere. The platform is too big to die, and too expensive for any challenger to seriously threaten it. And the only users they stand to lose with this move are the users who are costing them money, they don't care if adblock users leave as long as they keep everyone else.

[–] moldyringwald@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I don't think it will make enough of an impact for Alphabet to actually give a shit but I agree they're getting out of control with the ads and I think a handful of people will start looking for alternatives. I recently switched from Google to Kagi and I set up Firefox to redirect all YouTube links to Piped lol I think a lot of people are already trying to find alternatives to Google products due to general enshittification but they're so big I don't really see it hurting them in any significant way. I would love to see something actually compete with YouTube though tbh. I personally try to use non Google alternatives whenever possible these days

[–] Jamie@jamie.moe 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

For as long as people have complained about YouTube ads even before they started the crackdown, I don't think it'll matter. Tons of people didn't block them even before the option went away.

Personally, I bit the bullet and got Premium last year because I didn't feel like maintaining a DNS solution on my wifi and like using my TV for it. YouTube is basically the main form of "TV" that I watch when I'm in a couch potato mood. Most actual TV shows that come out aren't interesting to me.

I'm not really advocating everyone just go buy premium. Even in my case I'm not jumping up and down to give Google my money by any means. But for my situation it's an expense that I justify for myself

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

Tons of people didn't block them even before the option went away.

Excellent point.

Those of us that adblock are probably a single digit percent of their total traffic.

They just don't want that to increase.

[–] hellequin67@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

YT Premium is not available in my location and, as yet, adblock still working fine.

When they catch up with my location I'll use either revanced or LibreTube.

[–] Renacles@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 11 months ago

Just use smarttube

It’s possible this could begin a regulatory shitstorm. They may realize they’re tempting fate with how hard they’re pushing for profit in bullshit, unethical, sketchy ways.

Then again, some quant will probably walk into the room and present a business plan for regulatory capture of the EU and US and the long term profit that would yield, so they’ll definitely go that route.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 6 points 11 months ago

The assumpion Google is doing is that people install AdBlockes because they want something free. They seems not to be able to understand that they simply gone too far.

Google had the problem that they must show a ever growing revenue and since they cannot add more eyeball (or data to harvest) they simply need to try to get more from what they had. So as you say, the problem is not the single Ad, or the data harvest or any other single thing they do.
The problem is the sum of all of the things they do. They show multiple Ads, harvest your data, make you pay and still harvest your data and show the Ads.

People simply started to think "since Google want to screw me, then why I should not try to screw them ?"

Use Piped I hear you cry. Great idea. But how long is that going to last? I am certain that youtube and their parent company are feverishly pushing their engineers to find ways through, around, over and under any tool that stops them making money.

It will became the usual armed race, until Google would make their services so disfunctional to even the common user that people will simply stop using them since the value they get from the service is not worth the trouble.

That assuming that in some places (the EU for example) Google would not be hit by some law that force them to stop what they are doing and force them to play by the rules everyone else need to follow.

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

No. Also AdBlock works again

[–] Sparhawk87@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 11 months ago

If YouTube ads were like the ads on Pornhub, 30 seconds long and skippable after 5 seconds, I would be OK with ads these 1min at beginning and same in the middle for a 10min video is just ridiculous.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 4 points 11 months ago

I HOPE it does.

[–] Timwi@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

YouTube should just be government-run. No ads. Content creators can make money from sponsorships and Patreon. Which, incidentally, should also be government-run. And Twitter. These modern technologies should simply be public goods.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago

HaHaha which government.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 11 months ago

Hot but correct take.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Too international to be run by a single government and a consortium wouldn't know who to ban. A nonprofit couldn't really afford the infrastructure required to run it. The problem lies in how the Internet works.

Alphabet absolutely needs it's cloud hosting, ad servicing, video hosting and software as a service trust busted though. Same with Amazon's cloud, twitch, video, physical distribution, and marketplace.

[–] catboss@feddit.de 2 points 11 months ago

Your comment is the most interesting one in this whole thread, in a positive way.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It will hurt them a little bit, because it will drive a few people to alternative platforms. However, the majority of their user base is now captive, because they have grown dependent on Alphabet for a number of services. All they have to do is ban a few people from all of Alphabet to set the example, and then 99% of folks will either subscribe or disable their ad blockers. Because getting banned from all of their services would really, really suck for most people who depend on them. Just think of how many non-Alphabet logins would suddenly stop working (either because of federation or gmail dependencies). Not to mention their data saved to the cloud.

Unfortunately, big picture is, they will come out on top. Because of the "embrace, extend, and extinguish" model that they are veterans at. IOW, they know how to royally screw people.

I think our only glimmer of hope is the government continuing to go after monopolies. That's not much of a hope, though.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

All they have to do is ban a few people from all of Alphabet to set the example, and then 99% of folks will either subscribe or disable their ad blockers.

It can be like you said or, on the other hand, be the trigger to even more people to seek for alternatives.

Because getting banned from all of their services would really, really suck for most people who depend on them.

While true, fighting with your own clients/source of income is not a very brilliant strategy for a company. People that depend on them for serious reasons can simply decide that the risk is becoming too high and simply seek other solutions. All the SCO saga should have taught something...

Unfortunately, big picture is, they will come out on top. Because of the “embrace, extend, and extinguish” model that they are veterans at. IOW, they know how to royally screw people.

Maybe Google can win this battle, but I am not sure about the war. If the data that show that about 42% of the internet users had an AdBlocker installed are true, it remain to be seen how many of them will accept the condition Google set.

At this point is clear that the use of AdBlockers is hurting them in a way or another and while user may find an alternative solution for Google services, Google cannot find an alternative users for its services. In the end Google lose even if they only show a slower grow then predicted.

[–] Boozilla@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You are more optimistic than I am, and I hope you are right. I am mildly encouraged by some of the backlash we're seeing in the news against tech bros.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 11 months ago

You are more optimistic than I am, and I hope you are right. I am mildly encouraged by some of the backlash we’re seeing in the news against tech bros.

Nah, maybe I am just older and already seen this happening, and not only in tech.

The problem Google has is that they are on the edge: they need to fight adblockers but they cannot hurt too much the average user while the adblock users already shown that they accept to "go to war". And I don't think that Google has more resources than "us".

There is only so much ops a normal user accept to be able to use a service, they cannot take it too far to become an inconvenient to the average users. This way they simply will lose even the normal user.

A good parallel I do looking at myself is with Amazon, my orders hystory shows that when I started to use it I made much more orders, then in time Amazon got worse: cheap chinese clones, amazon ripoffs, query that shows irrelevant products, more and more difficulties to find the right product even if queried with the correct full name, so I simply switched to other online shops when I need to buy a certain brand product and not a cheap ripoff. So Amazon lost about 80% of my orders.

Same for Youtube: if while fighting against the adblockers they make the service worse even for the "average Joe" they will lose users and relevance.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

How well it hurt them? It well probably help them the people it drives away well be the ones who are blocking ads. So by moving to another platform you are saving on Youtubes costs.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Honestly, I would be fine with it, if they slashed the price of YT premium by about 60%.

Right now the cost of an individual YT premium membership is about 150SEK/Month, that is far too high.

I watch a LOT of YT on my commute, and I would be fine with paying 60-70SEK/Month.

In some regions the cost of an individual membership is the equivalent of about 20SEK/Month, so it is profitable even at those prices.

[–] Max_P@lemmy.max-p.me 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They really should unbundle YouTube Music or make a plan that's for people that want nothing more than ad-free, and make that tier basically about how much they got from serving you ads.

They're trying too hard to sell Premium as having all of those perks and extras that not everyone wants.

[–] WigglyTortoise@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 11 months ago

They actually had this in Europe and just discontinued it.

[–] DV8@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

They explicitly slashed that plan before they started going hard against adblocking. They were running tests with premium light which costed about €6 a month. It was basically all I wanted. But they sent a mail this tier was going away at literally the same time I read they started hard locking anyone using uBlock. (Which I still used with Premium Light to block out all the shorts bullshit)

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Honestly, I would be fine with it, if they slashed the price of YT premium by about 60%.

Here in Australia they just announced they're about to increase prices by about 60%... new prices is equivalent to 235 SEK / month (that is for a family plan... but the family plan is the best deal - then you can at least share the cost between people).

[–] steal_your_face@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

I wish it would but it won’t.

[–] heygooberman@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago

Hmmm...well, their fight against the adblockers is quite concerning, especially if the ads are so intrusive that they disrupt the user experience in viewing content, thus pushing more users to get Premium or go to another platform. It's not uncommon these days to find people migrating away from Big Tech platforms and going to other platforms that have more reasonable and sustainable services that benefit both the client and the vendor. The challenge is the content, which may not be as numerous as what you would find on YouTube, and along with that, there's the challenge of convincing creators to go onto those other platforms.

But, I am doubtful that Alphabet will be financially impacted. They might see a loss around YouTube, but that loss could be offset by profits from other products in their portfolio. Furthermore, because they have a paid option, it wouldn't be surprising to see people going for that option, especially if the cost is reasonable, and they are getting premium services not just for themselves but also their friends and family.

[–] HKayn@dormi.zone 0 points 11 months ago

I don't think so. Netflix cracked down on password sharing and it led to an increase in subscriptions.

Everyone here will have to make up their own mind on whether they want to continue using YouTube in this state.

[–] thelastknowngod@lemm.ee -2 points 11 months ago