this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
416 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37640 readers
193 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] confusedwiseman@beehaw.org 69 points 1 year ago (6 children)

It seems like we've all lost the plot. We'd probably be willing to view ads if the experience wasn't literally jarring. Try browsing for a day on a plain-no-extension browser. If you use other web enhancement tools kill those too. Straight-up internet is cancer, especially on mobile.

It's impossible to read a 250-word article without being interrupted 5-7 times. Two of those interruptions are likely a full page overlay with give me your email, and are you sure you don't want to subscribe, just give me your credit card number.

Then there are auto-play videos on the side, some with audio on by default. I mean I came here to read something, so of course we have things flashing and moving and making noise, it's the most conducive environment for thought, right?

Ad blockers and script blocking are essentially a hazmat suit that allows us to withstand a hostile environment. Remember when we said myspace pages with audio and [marching-ants] borders was a bad UX? At least we didn't have overlays back then.

Go back to basics and consider what makes a good vs bad internet experience. The reality sounds like someone with a minor case of severe brain damage. I think we've just become unashamed of greed as a society. It's clearly all just about money.

Those annoying customers/users generate content and we have to put up with them so we can monetize it. *Sadly, It's unclear if I'm talking about youtube, reddit, or nearly any other site.

Le sigh.

[–] StrayCatFrump@beehaw.org 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

We’d probably be willing to view ads if the experience wasn’t literally jarring.

Not me, sorry. Fuck ads. I've been ad-free for like a decade, and I'm not interested in regressing.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jamesravey@lemmy.nopro.be 48 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow the enshittification is at full throttle across silicon valley! Guess those investors gotta get those returns now that interest rates are spiking!

[–] chris@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

I have to imagine many of these investors also have money in areas whose prices have skyrocketed due to "inflation." They've seen the profits other industries are getting away with and now big tech feels the need to do the same. These companies are supposed to be the future, after all... How will it look if big oil is more profitable than mainstream digital platforms? To investors, it looks bad.

Sadly, when your ability to generate profit relies on using your users (or the developers and mods that run your platform cough Reddit) like cheap labor, rather than providing better product at reasonable prices, digital platforms suffer in usability or features. It's kind of a lose lose for anyone that actually cares, because so far the market hasn't self-corrected.

[–] mog77a@beehaw.org 35 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep, got selected for this test and I thought my network went down.

Had to do nearly 30 mins of debugging until I realized it was youtube actively withholding JUST the video. Took some effort but managed to get them to send the videos again after resetting a bunch of things.

I refuse to view ads and will go to the ends of the earth to make that happen.

Paying is most certainly an option, but only when that becomes the ONLY option.

I've been using an adblocker since ads starting becoming more intrusive and the internet has progressed so much that it's become generally unusable without one. I remember when a mobile ad popped up on my phone and it straight up startled me.

[–] mle86@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I'd happily pay for the content on youtube, if the user experience was not as miserable as it is.

Search is basically non functional, sort by oldest is gone, search in channel is only available on desktop not on mobile, filter videos by date range is not possible, video quality is mediocre, everyone and their dog makes titles that leave no clue at all about whats actually in the video because "they do better for the algorithm", if you want to actually read the comments or video thescription on mobile you'll have to click "shoe more" and "expand" until your finger hurts, video caches only a few seconds ahead, which makes watching on flaky connections miserable, video quality defaults to 480p even on gigabit internet, subtitles have become almost completely useless, etc., etc., etc.

If they would actually care about the user experience, I'd pay. Instead they just make the ads as annoying as possible, in the hopes that users pay just to get rid of the annoance, instead of paying for an actually good service.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kool_newt@beehaw.org 28 points 1 year ago (14 children)

That's funny, I'm testing YouTube alternatives.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (19 children)

I'll say something unexpected: I pay for YouTube. With money! Why?

  • I use it every day and I'm a human who likes boosting the things that I enjoy
  • I think YouTube's content recommendations are a genuine value-add and not easily replaced
  • A cut of my subscription fee goes directly back to the video creators that I watch
  • The "premium" encoding levels are actually a substantial improvement to video bitrates
    • Important: the premium bitrate is higher than anything previously offered and probably would not have been otherwise practical to serve for free

So yeah. I personally like YouTube enough to pay for it and I have the financial means to do so. Am I a clown for expressing personal appreciation towards a faceless megacorp? Yes. Yes I am. Constantly trying to win at every transaction in life is a drag though, so I think I'll continue to enjoy getting swindled.

[–] krogers@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago

I don't think there is anything wrong with paying for what you consider to be value. I pay for Nebula for similar reasons. Similarly, I don't have a problem with free services including modest ads to cover their costs and even make a profit.

I do have a problem with ads that have gotten so aggressive that the free experience becomes unusable. For many providers, I feel like they have lured in content creators by promising free access and then changed the bargain after the fact by making the free tier intolerable.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] gigachad@feddit.de 26 points 1 year ago (6 children)

We'll find a way around it, if not go to hell YT. Apart from posters in the real world, I am living a 100% ad-free life and I'm super happy about it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] b9chomps@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 year ago

If you serve me Ads that lead to scams and malicious websites, you don't reserve my ad revenue.

[–] eight_byte@feddit.de 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I do understand that if companies running ad-supported models, they need to make sure users are actually watching those ads. Seems logically to me - no ads mean no money, and no money means no sustainable business model.

On the other side, as a user, I just can't browse the internet without an ad-blocker any more. They just got so annoying and sometimes even break the actual website.

But to be honest, I don't see an alternative to ad-supported models except paying money directly via subscriptions plans etc. But this also will not work in the long term. I just can't pay afford to pay a subscription for each website I visit during the day.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] chillybones@beehaw.org 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

The comments in here are interesting to me. Ads and Premium are a way for your favorite content creators to get paid for the content that they produce. I've listened to a number of creators talk about the YouTube revenue sharing model and most of them (LTT and Hank Green) says that YouTube is actually really fair with how they share ad revenue and how Premium is actually a good alternative that meets the needs of the platform, users, and creators. And YouTube, the platform, DOES need to get paid as well otherwise your videos can't get to you.

I also hate ads, like a lot, and I do whatever I can to get them off of my screen because I think they are intrusive and we have proof of how they enable tracking across the internet at large. However, for those platforms that I find extreme value in (YouTube being the example here) I see how and why ads/Premium pump value into their system. If your favorite content creator isn't getting paid for their content, they won't be able to sustain it long term.

One last thought about video streaming and the content we all love that is hosted by YouTube: if we were to say that we would rather our money go directly to our favorite content creators, we would end up with a very fragmented ecosystem akin to the Streaming Service MESS we are in with TV/Movies. I would LOVE to pay LTT directly through Floatplane, but then where would I be with being able to watch other content creators?

[–] MrAegis@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Remember when ads were short and easy to skip? They're just getting more annoying now.

I could bear them back then, but now I can tell immediately if I accidentally use the mobile app on my phone vs my phone's web browser.

[–] mrmanager@lemmy.today 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is the thing about ads. It's never, ever enough. The web is unusable without an ad blocker and it doesn't matter. We still get more ads.

Basically I think we are going to have to find more and more alternatives to the web. It's ruined and it's not coming back.

I know many people who are back on piracy now. It's just impossible to take all the ads.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Terces@vlemmy.net 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand your argument, but I think the issue is more complex. I would wish that it was just advertisers paying money to YouTube and YouTube taking its cut and giving the rest to the content creator. It used to be like that in the beginning, but it isn't anymore. I do not pay for a YouTube subscription, because I don't want YouTube to track my videos and create a profile of me. Especially when I often have to sift through multiple videos just to find an answer to very specific question and YouTube takes that as me being super interested in that whole topic. Watching ads on the other hand is also just a large tracking apparatus that tries to squeeze money out of my pockets. My preferences over the whole Internet is being tracked to serve me "the most relevant and personalised content". Basically, they try to figure out what I want, before I do and then try to sell me that. If there is a way to directly support content creators (donations, subscriptions, etc), I usually do that. But I don't want to support shady business with my data behind my back.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] not_a_dog@lemmy.one 10 points 1 year ago

If they would let me just specifically pay for ad-free YouTube at a reasonable price, instead of lumping it in with a bunch of shit I don't use and am not interested in, I would happily pay.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hellothisisdog@yiffit.net 23 points 1 year ago (31 children)

oh look, another web service who wants to strangle its users for money and ad views :D when's a peertube instance going to get some big creators on it supported by viewers? that'll do it, i bet

load more comments (31 replies)
[–] reverendsteveii@beehaw.org 21 points 1 year ago

and I'm testing Youtube Revanced on my phone for unlimited ad-free background play for nothing!

[–] anthoniix@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Honestly, others do have point when they say we are basically leeching off of the platform. I honestly don't think I'd mind paying for youtube, I currently don't because it kind of just got ingrained in me that youtube was "free". I think the ad supported model is fundamentally flawed though.

Platforms will always want to make it worth it for advertisers to work for them. With the huge trove of user data that sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc. have they will use that to leverage personalized ads that will feed your brain with garbage all day and coax you into buying shit you don't need or sometimes even falling for scams.

I'd honestly like it better if these sites just straight up charged you right out of the gate. Maybe on top of that we could have sites be interoperable, like the fediverse, so it's not necessarily what the site offers but how they offer it to you. Making you want to pay for an experience that you truly can't get anywhere else.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] DarkGamer@beehaw.org 20 points 1 year ago (9 children)

This will lead to an increase of ad-blocker-blocker-blocker development.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 20 points 1 year ago (8 children)

If they really block adblockers, I will subscribe. To Nebula. It's got everything I want, adfree (including sponsored segments), extra content and is cheaper. And the content creators get a bigger share of the money.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] wpuckering@lm.williampuckering.com 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I just stood up a selfhosted Invidious instance the other day, and I replaced YouTube ReVanced with Clipious (an Invidious client for Android) on my phone. No ads, SponsorBlock built-in, no need for a YouTube/Google account to create subscriptions, playlists, etc. And it's highly performant since I run it behind a reverse proxy with some custom caching configuration for things like thumbnail images, static assets, etc.

Clipious can also be installed on an Android TV (has an actual Android TV interface). I'm going to end up installing it on mine, but I'm also using SmartTubeNext at the moment, which does require a YouTube/Google account for subscriptions, playlists, etc, but does have no ads, built-in SponsorBlock, and a slew of other great features. I'll be keeping both around, since I do sometimes like to cast to my TV, and SmartTubeNext allows for that (Clipious does not, at least at this time).

Unless YouTube somehow starts dynamically splicing in ads as part of the actual video stream, there's always going to be a way to block ads, unless they do something pretty elaborate. But that's probably not worth the effort on their end to go that far, since the vast, vast majority of people won't know what to do to get around that, nor will they probably care enough to try. But I think it's clear that DNS blocking using services such as AdGuard Home, PiHole, etc, are going to become less effective over time.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Grant_M@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

This should go quite well for YouTube. popcorn gif

[–] Supermuff@feddit.de 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Just get an adblocker-blocker-blocker. Easy

[–] grizzzlay@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I imagine folks wouldn't have a problem with this if the ads weren't already so aggressive. Numerous ads before and during the content break it up too much. And if the content is extremely short form, it completely ruins the experience.

The number of ads and their length should be proportional to the length of the video. And any creator doing built-in ads should also not be able to inject a bunch of other ads. Burying content is an easy way to get avoided.

Print media had limits for advertisements, heck, in magazines they were premium real estate for the finest graphic designers to put together incredible imagery to get your attention. This level of care (not necessarily images or what have you) has yet to translate to the web.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Wahots@pawb.social 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's always the Revanced Project on Android. Honestly though, I've cut way back on YouTube after their algorithm started shoveling crap at me. Now it's hard to find genuinely informative videos. It's all "This guy got PERMANENT ORGASM FACE DISORDER Tears of the Kingdom" type videos, instead of ones on science, technology, and news.

[–] DarkGamer@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ever tried looking at youtube while in incognito mode? What's popular is a hellscape of lowbrow garbage that makes reality tv look downright erudite. I still like the site when it shows me all the channels I've curated, but otherwise, goddamn...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Plume@beehaw.org 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

I pay for Prenium. But that's only because I also use YouTube Music. Otherwise, I wouldn't pay for it and I would do everything that I can to get rid of the ads. YouTube with ads is just hell now. There are so many of them now, it's ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, I recognise the value that YouTube provides. Most things I watch and listen to are on YouTube. It's the website I use the most and I'll be glad to pay for it. I understand that it costs money to run and I want to support the creators that I watch.

HOWEVER.

I refuse to be strong armed into paying for it. Music brings me the value that I want and comparing with other prices, such as Spotify and so on, the actual "YouTube" part of the package just cost me 1€ per month which is one hell of a deal if you ask me.

But if you don't care for YouTube Music, 11€ a month (worst in the US apparently), just to get rid of ads is... ridiculous. I'd happily pay 5€ a month. It's not much and for the thing that I use the most? Yeah, I'm willing to! And I know that there is YouTube Prenium Lite. However, it's not available everywhere and it comes with a giant "fuck you" to the costumer.

You see, YouTube Prenium Lite is YouTube without ads. And that's it. So, no Background Play (which I use ALL THE TIME), no downloading of videos, none of that. You want that, well, you have to pay full price. Even though these are basic features.

Paying for getting rid of ads is one thing, and maybe accessing special features is one thing. But paying for artificial limitations that are put into place? Absolutely not. And I know the line between what's a prenium feature and what's an artifical limit is blurry. But for me it's basically this: If I can do something for free on desktop, but can't on mobile without paying. Such as background play.

I am convinced YouTube Prenium would be way more appealing if YouTube weren't being such dicks about it.

It's simple:

  • Get your prices back to normal (I hear that in the US, prices have been going up for... no reason).
  • Roll out YouTube Prenium Lite to everyone and rename it YouTube Prenium. So it has all the features of current Prenium except YouTube Music (put ads and disable background play only on music videos?).
  • Make it at like 5 bucks a month.
  • Make a variety of plans based around that. So a Prenium Family and also, a Prenium Duo, just like Spotify, for just two people. Reasonably priced.
  • And you make a YouTube Prenium Music plan, which includes YouTube Music as well. So on top of all of that, for 11 bucks a month, you now have a really compelling offer because you can go, Hey, for just 5 more bucks a month, you get all of the features of YouTube Prenium AND you get a complete music streaming services.
  • Oh and also: STOP DOING THIS SHIT.

Bam. All of the sudden you have compelling options. Some people will say: "Uuuh, jUsT uSe an AdbLocKeR!" and whatever. Those people are not the majority, so many people watch YouTube from their phones and their TVs now, they will be much more inclined to buy it...

...I think.

That last part is important. I recognise I'm just playing armchair business developper here and that I don't know shit, but still. I'm convinced this could work. The real issue comes down to YouTube being a monopoly and thinking that they can do whatever the hell they want, which... they likely can, due to the position they're in. It's an issue but this comment is already long enough and that is another discussion entirely, but basically: Monopolies sucks.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] vraylle@beehaw.org 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

At least with my subscriptions I've been noticing an increase in sponsored segments. And you know what? I don't mind. It's much less jarring when the "host" is also doing the ad and pretty much just works it into the video. People have to make money, and this old-school approach works for me. Reminds me of ads in old TV/radio shows. And it doesn't suddenly change the scene and quadruple the volume along with seizure-inducing backgrounds.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FujiTive@lemmy.fmhy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (8 children)

I use YouTube a lot, both on my phone via ReVanced and my smart TV via SmartTubeNext, completely ad free. If Youtube manage to block videos unless the users deactivate their adblockers, even if I enjoy Youtube a lot, I'll just stop watching videos. The quantity of ad per video is just insane. No way I can stand watching all those ads.

[–] wiredfire@beehaw.org 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I don’t disagree, YouTube won’t care. Currently folk like you and I who evade their ads are freeloading. We get all the content and YouTube gets nothing in return. Having those who block ads abandon watching doesn’t lose YouTube anything, and maybe saves them a little bandwidth bill I guess?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] stagen@feddit.dk 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Fuck youtube anyway. Absolute sesspit of influencers, ads and stolen content.

[–] janeshep@feddit.it 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

to be honest YouTube has great content because of the video length allowed. You can find all sorts of tutorials on pretty much anything. Instagram and TikTok, on the other hand, fit your description much better.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WondrousFairy@lemmy.fmhy.ml 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Translation: YT tests randomly pissing off users until they get fed up and leave for another site. if a site tells me I can't partake of their content with my adblocker engaged, I simply find my fix elsewhere.

[–] stargazer@lemmy.fmhy.ml 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuck youtube and fuck their ads, this shit is getting out of hand

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sangle_of_flame@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Oh, cool; more reason to use Piped and Invidious lmao

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mindcruzer@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

Honestly if I worked at YouTube and they asked me to implement this I'd quit.

[–] basuramannen@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

So soon we will need an adblocker blocker blocker to use YouTube?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] fennec@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yet another platform to boycott? Excellent!

[–] Soullioness@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Right! I'm enjoying all these FOSS alternatives lately. I really hope they're here to stay.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ubergeek77@lemmy.ubergeek77.chat 10 points 1 year ago (19 children)

Alternate headline: Users test using only YouTube ReVanced to bypass this new system

load more comments (19 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›