Skip to content

YouTube might slow down your videos if you block ads

Technology
224 150 1
  • This post did not contain any content.

    I have revanced on my phone and adblock on my laptop so I don't see ads on youtube on them, but I can't get rid of the youtube ads on my smart TV so I'm forced to deal with the ads for now... and the contrast shows just how insufferable youtube has become. They're so fucking aggressive with the ads now. I'm starting to get a full minute of unskippable ads for a 2 minute meme video. It's completely ridiculous. Not only that but the number of skippable ads, short ads, or videos with just one ad are quickly decreasing. Youtube is destroying itself.

  • The trouble with that is that there is barely any money outside of YouTube.

    That's because of missing views though mostly, no? The ad revenue isn't big anyways I think.

  • Nebula's getting better and I spend more time there now than on YouTube. Happy that YouTube is working hard to encourage this transition.

    I wish the videos were longer than 8 min on nebula.

  • I wish the videos were longer than 8 min on nebula.

    Philosophy tube and jet lagged are both longer than 8 minutes, I think nilered is on there as well and is definitely longer than 8 minutes.

  • I wish the videos were longer than 8 min on nebula.

    There's a ton of content that's much longer. There's no 8-minute limitation.

  • I'll never go there. Paid is a no way situation.

    It's not for everyone, but I think it's reasonable to pay for a platform that pays its content creators fairly. I spend a lot of things watching videos, and even though my income is limited, some kind of payment for the service makes sense.

    I don't mind blocking ads on YouTube because they used unfair practices (endless resources from Google) to destroy the competition and become the only video provider. They put us in a corner and deserve to be put in one too.

  • It is... they've out spent the competition. Now that no one else is around, they're trying to make all the money they can. Luckily, it won't be long before some other alternative will pop up anyway.

    People have been saying this for years now.

  • It's basically netflix not youtube.

    Then it's not an alternative

    If it pays "a good bit more per view" than YouTube when basically no one on YT pays and many users have adblockers, someone is getting ripped off here

  • Content creators. It's hard to host everyone's videos, and it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary, as it prevents new entrants. It's not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted). It becomes harder when you suddenly become popular, a situation which Peertube explicitly compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers, which scales with popularity.

    Signal makes it's own bed like YouTube by being a single centralised server for everyone. Nobody ever asks "who pays for the servers" when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

    It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted).

    Do you really expect more than even 5% of all youtube channels to do it? You have high hopes.

    compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers

    I believe it's done in a kinda P2P way? Didn't really check, but wouldn't that just not work with NAT internet connections, which many people have because that's just more secure this way? Also, bad for privacy.

    Using a TURN server would also add huge costs so it's basically like hosting your own server

    Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

    I don't so I wouldn't, but if I was, I would be wondering, as I always do. Anyways, I believe XMPP doesn't store stuff and only transmits, and Matrix doesn't store things forever (and doesn't store videos like YT), and the main instance is funded by donations, and smaller instances are just pretty small and have media wiped when needed

    it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary

    That's the POV of people in !technology@lemmy.world or selfhosted. Most people can't be bothered with this shit and are pretty tech illiterate. Some don't want to waste even a minute. And that's the case of the very vast majority of people on the internet.

  • It's not for everyone, but I think it's reasonable to pay for a platform that pays its content creators fairly. I spend a lot of things watching videos, and even though my income is limited, some kind of payment for the service makes sense.

    I don't mind blocking ads on YouTube because they used unfair practices (endless resources from Google) to destroy the competition and become the only video provider. They put us in a corner and deserve to be put in one too.

    I think I should be more clear: I agree that it is reasonable to pay a platform that is fair.

    The comparison to youtube is where it gets lost for me:

    The issue is that, in general, the value of watching what is typically on youtube is about the level of free. If it cost me money, I could do without, it just isn't that important. I will find better ways to spend my time. So with Nebula, you have a platform that is more like just another streaming service, albeit a good one for independent creators. But that leaves me thinking what do they have that I would bother watching? Which is a pretty high bar (I didnt even own a tv for nearly 20 years). It seems less like youtube and more like HBO for independents on paper, and without free access how would I know the difference?

  • I think I should be more clear: I agree that it is reasonable to pay a platform that is fair.

    The comparison to youtube is where it gets lost for me:

    The issue is that, in general, the value of watching what is typically on youtube is about the level of free. If it cost me money, I could do without, it just isn't that important. I will find better ways to spend my time. So with Nebula, you have a platform that is more like just another streaming service, albeit a good one for independent creators. But that leaves me thinking what do they have that I would bother watching? Which is a pretty high bar (I didnt even own a tv for nearly 20 years). It seems less like youtube and more like HBO for independents on paper, and without free access how would I know the difference?

    I mean that's fair : value is relative.

    The main value of Nebula is no ads. I have YouTube on Firefox with uBlock Origin, so no ads either, but shitty performance due to YouTube fighting the AdBlocker. But more importantly I don't think the ability to watch YouTube with no ads is a given, so I want to have a viable alternative.

    And secondly, I want to support the creators and a platform that sees me as a customer, not as a data-cow to be milked.

    I'm sure Nebula will eventually have a free tier, but that can incur high costs and degrade the experience for paying users. They'll do it when they feel comfortable.

  • It’s not nearly as hard to host your own server (or pay for it to be hosted).

    Do you really expect more than even 5% of all youtube channels to do it? You have high hopes.

    compensates for by sharing the distribution effort between viewers

    I believe it's done in a kinda P2P way? Didn't really check, but wouldn't that just not work with NAT internet connections, which many people have because that's just more secure this way? Also, bad for privacy.

    Using a TURN server would also add huge costs so it's basically like hosting your own server

    Nobody ever asks “who pays for the servers” when it comes to Matrix or XMPP

    I don't so I wouldn't, but if I was, I would be wondering, as I always do. Anyways, I believe XMPP doesn't store stuff and only transmits, and Matrix doesn't store things forever (and doesn't store videos like YT), and the main instance is funded by donations, and smaller instances are just pretty small and have media wiped when needed

    it benefits monopolists to imply that doing so is necessary

    That's the POV of people in !technology@lemmy.world or selfhosted. Most people can't be bothered with this shit and are pretty tech illiterate. Some don't want to waste even a minute. And that's the case of the very vast majority of people on the internet.

    Just to be clear before I respond to the rest of this comment, my position is that Peertube solves the sustainability problem and in no way am I suggesting Peertube will replace YouTube

    I do not expect the vast majority of channels to survive the end of YouTube, as is normal for any paradigm shift.

    P2P is completely achievable using NAT Hole Punching. I have no clarity on if Peertube is doing this but since there's already a trusted server involved it would be silly not to.

    In a hypothetical, unlikely future where YouTube dies and people generally move to Peertube, I expect the majority of content creators to pay small fees to have instances host their videos. I expect small, free but restricted instances will continue to be the home for amateur videographers as they are today. The more technical folk will likely self host, and groups of like minded creators will pool efforts to run group specialist instances (not unlike Nebula).

    Frankly the most likely scenario is YouTube dies and everyone starts posting videos to Instagram or Tiktok or something equivalently anti user.

  • one option

    hell of a lot less censorship, and better video quality there as well.

    I tried using the Daily Motion Chromecast app the other day, until it served up an hour-long lecture as an advert with no “skip” button.

  • I pay for YouTube premium so that I can leave the app and listen to videos. I still get ads even though I’m paying. I don’t think there’s a single surefire way to avoid them.

    Use Firefox + ublock origin.
    Start the video, get out of the app/lock you phone, then swipe down and click on 'play' on the media controls.

    This works on andriod, unsure about ios.

  • Atom-Thin Tech Replaces Silicon in the World’s First 2D Computer

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    125 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    L
    The 'laptop' is s conceptual illustration. The image shown on the laptop screen is an actual SEM image.
  • Diego

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • Looking elsewhere

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    7 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    J
    That's a valid point! I've been searching for places to hangout for a while, sometimes called "campfires". Found a cool Discord with generous front-end folks (that's a broad spectrum!), on frontend.horse.
  • Hands-On: EufyMake E1 UV Printer

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    38 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    I watched a bit of Michael Alm's video on this, but noped out when I saw all of the little boxes of consumables appearing. If regular printer ink is already exorbitant, I can only imagine what these proprietary cartridges will cost.
  • Google Shared My Phone Number!

    Technology technology
    45
    1
    145 Stimmen
    45 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    M
    Italy, and all of Europe, have always had a greater respect for personal and a lesser respect for business' profits than the U.S.
  • The Enshitification of Youtube’s Full Album Playlists

    Technology technology
    3
    1
    108 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    dual_sport_dork@lemmy.worldD
    Especially when the poster does not disclose that it's AI. The perpetual Youtube rabbit hole occasionally lands on one of these for me when I leave it unsupervised, and usually you can tell from the "cover" art. But only if you're looking at it. Because if you just leave it going in the background eventually you start to realize, "Wow, this guy really tripped over the fine line between a groove and rut." Then you click on it and look: Curses! Foiled again. And golly gee, I'm sure glad Youtube took away the option to oughtright block channels. I'm sure that's a total coincidence. W/e. I'm a have-it-on-my-hard-drive kind of bird. Yt-dlp is your friend. Just use it to nab whatever it is you actually want and let your own media player decide how to shuffle and present it. This works great for big name commercial music as well, whereupon the record labels are inevitably dumb enough to post songs and albums in their entirety right there you Youtube. Who even needs piracy sites at that rate? Yoink!
  • 14 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    D
    "Extra Verification steps" I know how large social media companies operate. This is all about increasing the value of Reddit users to advertisers. The goal is to have a more accurate user database to sell them. Zuckerberg literally brags to corporations about how good their data is on users: https://www.facebook.com/business/ads/performance-marketing Here, Zuckerberg tells corporations that Instagram can easily manipulate users into purchasing shit: https://www.facebook.com/business/instagram/instagram-reels Always be wary of anything available for free. There are some quality exceptions (CBC, VLC, The Guardian, Linux, PBS, Wikipedia, Lemmy, ProPublica) but, by and large, "free" means they don't care about you. You are just a commodity that they sell. Facebook, Google, X, Reddit, Instagram... Their goal is keep people hooked to their smartphone by giving them regular small dopamine hits (likes, upvotes) followed by a small breaks with outrageous content/emotional content. Keep them hooked, gather their data, and sell them ads. The people who know that best are former top executives : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/05/smartphone-addiction-silicon-valley-dystopia https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/business/addictive-technology.html https://www.today.com/parents/teens/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-rcna15256