YouTube is running an experiment asking some users to disable their ad blockers or pay for a premium subscription, or they will not be allowed to watch videos.
As YouTube increases the number and length of ads, the amount of traffic behind blockers rises accordingly.
This is also just... a function of the evolving digital space. The consolidation of the internet ownership sphere and the modernized APIs/coding tools afford server-side content warehouses more and more power over what the end user receives.
Because AWS owns all the fucking rack space, because ISP monopolies are the defining feature of western net access, and Microsoft force-feeds people their proprietary interfaces, we're moving away from the point where clients control what they display and closer to the point where everything's just a dumb-terminal for big business.
We're effectively backpeddling from Web 2.0 to Terrestrial TV.
Youtube most likely never made any money. Hosting these vast amounts of video is expensive. Google stopped telling us how much they money youtube made them lose. You would think they would start bragging when they could make a profit off of it.
Although they don't profit directly from youtube, it's a strategy they take to impede competition from arising and keeping their name as the main one. It's the kind of strategy only multibillionaire companies can do, and, in my opinion, something that should be restricted, because it affects smaller businesses to the point of becoming inviable.
YouTube allows creators to monetize content - so there's a sense of shared success. Channels from Tom Scott or Captain Disillusion are amazing, because their production in part relies on that revenue model.
YouTube also understands that without paying for popular content, you won't get the consistent cavalcade of medium content from people that want to earn a living or notoriety through YouTube. And that include anything from videos of cats falling over, blogs about life in remote places, DIY home improvement or niche guitar technique lessons.
Meanwhile on Reddit, if a user gets thousands of upvotes and a million page views for a short story they wrote exclusively for the platform, Reddit won't pay them a cent. The very thought is laughable.
The other thing to consider is that the technology just doesn't exist for there to be a viable 'federated' YouTube. YouTube has 800 million videos - many in HD and many are hours long. That's a big ask in terms of storage and maintenance - even several thousand videos.
Video compression has a long way to go before that changes. For now, it makes sense for leave that storage to the companies with resources.
Text, however... well, all of Wikipedia can fit on around 20 gigs - 60 million odd articles. And for the record, that can pretty much fit on an iPod from 2002.
I do wish that YouTube wasn't a monopoly. Twitch is the only thing that's close, and it has it's own special lane for live streaming. Back in the old days, there was some competition - including Google Video. But that went away when Google bought YouTube. I guess there's Vimeo, but they've got a very different approach.
I mean, the Justice Department is suing Google for monopolizing ad tech - and I think we could see antitrust laws used in the next few years to breakup YouTube. Maybe the successor companies would federate - like when Bell was broken up into what became Verizon and ATT - who now directly compete for customers.
The other thing to consider is that the technology just doesn’t exist for there to be a viable ‘federated’ YouTube.
Well, Peertube exists. But I agree it is very hard to get close to the amount of videos YouTube hosts without it becoming too expensive. But that is even true for companies like Google, which is why they are pushing these changes. It seems like people need to accept that a video platform must either show ads, make you subscribe, or receive substantial donations.
I almost can't believe Wikipedia is only 20GB btw. Does that include all the pictures on there?
@pinwurm@manned_meatball I wonder if if Nvidia Video Upscaling and similar tech could also help 480p videos turn HD. That could help bandwidth reduction but it isn't a solution as much as a workaround.
I think the day will come when YouTube caps uploads or stops them entirely. Maybe limiting user's uploads for videos that don't get high viewership. Eventually this model can't go on forever, I can't even comprehend how it's profitable currently.
Right there with you on that one. The biggest problem is video hosting is a pain in the rear, particularly at such a grand scale. Hopefully, video hosting platforms will go niche, thus reducing bandwidth costs for each platform and "YouTube" will be the whole federation.
LBRY solves it by creating their token and rewarding peers for storing and serving the media. The same goes for most P2P solutions, there's no entity that has to pay for the costs, all the network shares it. More users and peers mean higher resources, but the individual costs remain roughly the same.
Is there a video platform that works in the fediverse as well? Feel like if we are doing alternatives that we should use things that are all based off of similar decentralized tech.
Just wait until they figure out how much more $$$$ they can make by putting all content behind microtransactions:
Imagine a world where, instead of grappling with complex tokens and crypto jargon, you have a digital wallet connected to your Web browser. This wallet would automatically handle microtransactions as you browse and consume content, creating a seamless and simplified experience, reminiscent of exchanging tokens at a funfair or arcade
This transition to the Great Paywall isn't just about the monetization of content; it's about balancing the scales and recognizing the value of content creators in the digital ecosystem. In the next chapter of the Web, users aren't just passive consumers but active participants whose attention carries tangible value.
Let's not forget that, if we do go down the microtransaction hell of an internet path, we'd be screwing things up big-time for the coming generations...
As fill-in ads are a vector for computer viruses and other malware I for one will NOT be disabling my ad blocker unless YouTube is willing to provide a lifetime subscription to something like Life Lock and make me whole for anything lost to whatever malware arrives as a part of an ad.
Where else can I watch sci-show, Linus-tech-tips, and all the other channels I subscribe to?
Just use newpipe. It's youtube without the ads.
Doesn't have casting support, but it allows you to download the videos. You can also listen/download to the audio of videos, without fetching the video.
This is why I download so many YouTube videos. This is why I have a complicated video tags and search system (I'll put it on github eventually).
Some day it's going to get taken away and I'm not watching those trashy ads. I'd watch a non-obnoxious 15-30 second ad every 30 minutes but they want us to watch 2 minutes of unskippable full-r*tard annoying trash every 5 minutes and I will not cooperate with that in any way shape or form.
I think a reasonable ad system is that thing where YouTubers do that sponsorship thing and make it part of the video then you can skip it if it sucks.
My rational mind realises it’s such an expensive system to run that it’s reasonable for them to charge or show ads. The problem is they’ve been extremely aggressive with ads and pushing subscriptions, to the point where I’m pretty resentful of the idea. Plus they’ve neglected so many things (like allowing aggressive copyright predators and refusing to implement sensible human-based appeals processes) that they really should have dealt with and instead embraced an algorithm that I’m pretty sure is at least partially responsible for the radicalisation of large groups of people.
I.. don’t mind paying for shit. I just don’t want to give them money.
Also: wow there’s federated video sharing? Bet that’s not cheap to run.
When will companies finally understand that some people won‘t watch ads no matter what tricks they employ. I‘d rather watch no video at all than a single ad. If that is their goal, fine.
That’s likely their goal. At least some percentage of ad blocking users will disable the adblock and for those that won’t, they’ll save server costs.
For corporations that care only about quarterly stock price this makes sense. They don’t care about the long term damage to the ecosystem (adblocking users still contribute in many ways).
And the percentage of people using ad blocking has to be crazy low. I've never seen another person in public with ad blocking. Every time I happen to see someone watching youtube, there's ads playing.
Yeah I worked in IT support for a time and most seemed not even aware it is a thing, let alone installed it. Mostly the other IT people and a few others.
You can watch any YouTube video on Invidious, Peertube is a federated alternative to Youtube, Odysee is a blockchain based Youtube alternative that kicks back to creators and users, and many creators use Nebula as a subscription platform that directly pays them.
@ram@Pechente but there business model is suspicious. They introduced a lifetime membership, how would that cover their bandwidth costs for those users?
Unless they're trying to grow the platform fast and hope for a buy out. But then any prior promises would likely be changed/revoked.
VC cash is drying up, and other investors are getting leery of the Silicon Valley funding model. Investors are demanding a path to profitability soon or right now.
I feel like extensions are pretty savvy for fixing this. If not, I will waste less time on YouTube. Hell, why not another big site getting over my limit for hoops that are worth jumping through vs value I get.
Yup, a lot of my time got wasted on YouTube.. I watched "educational" and "interesting" videos but I have to say that many of the creators got caught into enshittification process too.. I would do well with 95% reduction in watch time. However, if they start a real war against adblockers.. 100% reduction will it be.
The 10min minimum is why I pretty much stopped posting. If you don't provide enough viewing time for 2 pre-rolls and one intermission your revenue per 1k views drops off and you don't get promoted to new viewers.
It is clear that YT needs income for its infrastructure and showing ads is a valid method, also to offer a premium account. If it were to see a banner on the page or even on the edge or below the video, it would be acceptable, but it is not when they destroy a concert with advertorials in the middle of the video or other too invasive ones that do not allow the video to be seen.
With this, the use of an adblocker becomes a legitimate and necessary defense. If they still do not allow it, there is no other option than to use one of these front-ends or desktop-clients that exist, which extract the video without the ads, or go to adblockers at DNS level in the OS. Too bad that YT, regarding content offer, lacks valid competitors and this position can lead to abuse in front of the user.
Too bad that YT, regarding content offer, lacks valid competitors and this position can lead to abuse in front of the user.
It's the same as any other platform - the network effect. People are more likely to produce content for youtube because thats where the users are.
That said, it's easier for content creators to support alternatives because unlike social media where everyone is a creator video content producers have a creator > follower relationship, so there's almost no cost to them to upload the same content on other sites.
I subscribed to nebula a while back. There's not heaps of content, and all (ok almost all) of it is available for free on youtube. However, I'm happy to pay provided that most of the revenue is going to creators, and I'm happy to support a non-advertising-revenue model.
I really think that Brave will circumvent this.
Btw, YouTube will sue Invidious if they don't stop offering the service in the following weeks. So I think YouTube is onto something here.
I actually do not understand the widespread hostility that people have toward this kind of thing. I watch a lot of content on YouTube, and I don't want to see ads, so I pay for premium. I watch a lot of content on Twitch, and I don't want to see ads, so I pay for turbo. Hosting a major video streaming website isn't cheap. It's not like these things are unreasonably priced. If you hate the ads so much, then why not pay for the service that the platform is offering you, and for the content that creators are providing on it? And if you don't watch often enough for ad-free viewing to be worth a few bucks a month to you, then why get so worked up about having to sit through an ad every now and then?
I can't speak for everyone, but I block ads and don't pay because I hate Google. In addition to their repeated violations of user privacy, they go out of their way to disable OS features unless you pay them. Like disabling background play or PiP with Safari on iOS. Those features use the same open standards as foreground web browsers, so it literally takes extra effort to break them. Effort that could instead be used to fix the numerous problems with their platform, which they don't. I refuse to reward that behaviour.
One of the reasons I'm willing to pay is because I want the creators I watch to get the revenue to make more videos. (Although, without knowing for sure, I'd bet they get more off sponsorships than they do out of subscriptions or inserted ads.)
I hate ads with a passion due to my experiences in the marketing industry and will go out of my way to never watch any. I also don’t want to pay for random internet content, especially not to companies on the stock market. (Though I do use Patreon a bit for some content creators)
Can‘t explain it much more than that. If youtube locks me out due to that, so be it. I don‘t get worked up either, I simply state my opinion on it where I please and if I‘m not wanted I leave. That‘s about it.
I simply hate ads with a passion due to my experiences in marketing and will go out of my way to never watch any. Can‘t explain it much more than that. If youtube locks me out due to that, so be it. I don‘t get worked up either, I simply state my opinion on it where I please and if I‘m not wanted I leave. That‘s about it.
Why don't you pay for YouTube premium? This removes all platform ads.
I hate ads. They are annoying, and waste too much of my time, are irrelevant to me 90% of the time, and often can be malicious.
I would like to watch videos on youtube, but I dont wish to watch videos on youtube if there are ads. Also, ads are not every now and again, they are 2 ads for every video without fail now. 2x 30s ads for a 5 minute video is as bad as cable, I ditched cable and replaced it with youtube.
And if you don’t watch often enough for ad-free viewing to be worth a few bucks a month to you, then why get so worked up about having to sit through an ad every now and then?
There is an awkward gap where most services (not just YouTube) don't offer reasonable pricing for consuming small amounts of content. So if you consume a lot of YouTube, the subscription price is justified. If you consume very little YouTube, you can probably suffer through some ads. But if you're somewhere in the middle, there isn't a great option.
YouTube probably makes fractions of a cent off of ads on a single video it shows me, but I can't pay fractions of a cent to watch one video.
I'd consider this to actually be a pretty widespread problem across the internet, where it's frustratingly difficult to buy small amounts of content for a reasonable price. It's either the subscription or nothing for a ton of services.
I just don't think content should be behind a paywall. I want to live in a socialist utopia where content and knowledge is free to share, copyright is a relic of the past, and art and science blossom. Blocking ads takes me 0.0001% closer to that, so I'll take it. I don't want to pay, because I don't want money to exist, it's deeper than experience vs how much it is worth.
I just don’t think content should be behind a paywall. I want to live in a socialist utopia where content and knowledge is free to share, copyright is a relic of the past, and art and science blossom. Blocking ads takes me 0.0001% closer to that, so I’ll take it. I don’t want to pay, because I don’t want money to exist, it’s deeper than experience vs how much it is worth.
I do think that publicly-owned and publicly-funded alternatives to platforms like YouTube and Twitch could make the internet a far better place. I'd be surprised if, at least here in the EU, where there is an ongoing attempt to actually regulate tech companies, we didn't see this happening sooner or later.
For the time being, though, I know that the creators whose content I enjoy so much couldn't keep doing what they do without compensation, and the YouTube servers their content are hosted on would be taken down if they could not be paid for. So I pay for premium, content enough to know that I'm doing my fair part in keeping the videos I enjoy available and enabling the people who create them to keep creating more, even if the system under which all this occurs is much less than ideal.
I was happy paying for Premium until they doubled my subscription fee out of the blue.
I was a day one Google Play Music All Access subscriber, supposedly grandfathered in to a lower subscription fee, but all that ended up getting me in the end was "Sorry, but it's your turn to pay up now. We know you were supposed to be grandfathered in so we'll give you a few extra months of your current rate after we bump up the costs for everyone else."
They main problem I have with this is that we don't have a decent alternative for youtube yet. The main reason I don't want to pay for youtube is because it is Google. With YT premium you don't buy privacy (logically you would say with removing ads you also remove the need to track people).
I pay for a youtube premium family plan. Best money I spend monthly. I want to support the youtube creators that I watch, I don't have to see ads (I block them anyway), and I get a music service included.
I do not have first hand knowledge, but I have heard that premium viewers are much more valuable to a channel than ad supported views. I also support channels I enjoy through Patreon as well. I would much rather pay and be a customer than do "free" services where my info is just the product for corporations.
I'm with you ... except for the music part. I think their music service is so awful, I pay for a Tidal subscription even though I get YouTube Music for free.
I'm of the belief that if I'm going to use a commercial site regularly, and they have a reasonable subscription, then I'm very willing to pay.