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.

    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.

  • Founder of 23andMe buys back company out of bankruptcy auction

    Technology technology
    59
    1
    347 Stimmen
    59 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    N
    I assumed they were making absolute bank by selling the data
  • 179 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    S
    I will be there. I will be armed. I will carry a gas mask. I will carry water and medical for my compatriots. I will not start shit. I will fight back if it comes to it.
  • What Happens If an Asteroid Heads for Earth?

    Technology technology
    13
    1
    34 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    M
    Well, shi
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.
  • 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.
  • 138 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    H
    My ports are on the front of the router. No backdoors for me, checkmate Atheists.
  • Are We All Becoming More Hostile Online?

    Technology technology
    31
    1
    213 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    A
    Back in the day I just assumed everyone was lying. Or trying to get people worked up, and we called them trolls. Learning how to ignore the trolls, and not having trust for strangers on the internet, coupled with the ability to basically not care what random people said is a lost art. Somehow people forgot to give other the people this memo, including the "you don't fucking join social networks as your self". Anonymity makes this all work. Eternal September newbies just didn't get it.
  • Apple Watch Shipments’ Continuous Decline

    Technology technology
    10
    1
    22 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    A
    i mean as a core feature of a watch/smartwatch in general. garmin is going above and beyond compared to the competition in that area, and that's great. But that doesn't mean every other smartwatch manufacturer arbitrarily locking traditional watch features behind paywalls. and yeah apple does fitness themed commercials for apple watch because it does help with fitness a ton out of the box. just not specifically guided workouts.