Skip to content

YouTube might slow down your videos if you block ads

Technology
224 150 1
  • 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.

  • 132 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    V
    Ah, yes. That's correct, sorry I misunderstood you. Yeah that's pretty lame that it doesn't work on desktop. I remember wanting to use that several times.
  • 288 Stimmen
    46 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    E
    NGL, it would be great if they could make it work and go fuck off into international waters. Unrelated, but did you know that if you put big enough holes in a ship it'll sink?
  • 51 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    H
    Also fair
  • 1k Stimmen
    252 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    jjlinux@lemmy.mlJ
    And that's fine. I agree. Becoming consumist hoarders is what got us to where we're at. Or rather, what allowed companies and institutions to take us here.
  • 0 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.orgE
    Nextdoor is an absolute black hole social media site, it absorbs the worst of humanity so we don't have to see them anywhere else.
  • 163 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    stroz@infosec.pubS
    Move fast and break people
  • CrowdStrike Announces Layoffs Affecting 500 Employees

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    243 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    S
    This is where the magic of near meaningless corpo-babble comes in. The layoffs are part of a plan to aspirationally acheive the goal of $10b revenue by EoY 2025. What they are actually doing is a significant restructuring of the company, refocusing by outside hiring some amount of new people to lead or be a part of departments or positions that haven't existed before, or are being refocused to other priorities... ... But this process also involves laying off 500 of the 'least productive' or 'least mission critical' employees. So, technically, they can, and are, arguing that their new organizational paradigm will be so succesful that it actually will result in increased revenue, not just lower expenses. Generally corpos call this something like 'right-sizing' or 'refocusing' or something like that. ... But of course... anyone with any actual experience with working at a place that does this... will tell you roughly this is what happens: Turns out all those 'grunts' you let go of, well they actually do a lot more work in a bunch of weird, esoteric, bandaid solutions to keep everything going, than upper management was aware of... because middle management doesn't acknowledge or often even understand that that work was being done, because they are generally self-aggrandizing narcissist petty tyrants who spend more time in meetings fluffing themselves up than actually doing any useful management. Then, also, you are now bringing on new, outside people who look great on paper, to lead new or modified apartments... but they of course also do not have any institutional knowledge, as they are new. So now, you have a whole bunch of undocumented work that was being done, processes which were being followed... which is no longer being done, which is not documented.... and the new guys, even if they have the best intentions, now have to spend a quarter or two or three figuring out just exactly how much pre-existing middle management has been bullshitting about, figuring out just how much things do not actually function as they ssid it did... So now your efficiency improving restructuring is actually a chaotic mess. ... Now, this 'right sizing' is not always apocalyptically extremely bad, but it is also essentially never totally free from hiccups... and it increases stress, workload, and tensions between basically everyone at the company, to some extent. Here's Forbes explanation of this phenomenon, if you prefer an explanation of right sizing in corpospeak: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/rightsizing/
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    3 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet