Sounds like trouble for Newpipe, Sponsorblock, etc…

  • Nora@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.

    • SuperSpruce@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      7 months ago

      I can tolerate ads as long as it’s helping the creators and isn’t used to make the platform worse. The first condition is only sometimes satisfied and the 2nd is being straight up violated.

      If they can fix how garbage search is and put the dislike count back, I’ll happily pay for premium as a thank you for making a great platform. But nope, they just focus on making the UI even worse.

    • tias
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      What is your suggestion for financing the YouTube infrastructure and development?

      • Broken@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is a good discussion point, rather than an arms race discussion of ads vs adblockers.

        Some key points to make are that Google is making a crap ton of money from ads, they are keeping most of it so creators must resort to sponsorships and patreon. Google additionally makes money by selling your profile data.

        It’s not like I have a true answer to your question, but a “workable” system should consist of: Google makes money Creators make money Customers are reasonably private The concept of making money isn’t about making the entire system worse, just so you pay for it not to be

        My problem with Google is they don’t really care. They’ll burn it all if it makes them money until it’s dead.

        There could be some key features that get implemented on a paid tier, but paying is just ads vs no ads.

        An equally valid question would be, what can YT do to incentivize you to pay? They could ad features only available to subscribers, but they really don’t.

        I would make it a semi walled garden, with free and premium content. Subscription tiers would be for customers and creators alike. Vimeo has a good system (though not perfect) with feature sets only available certain tiers. There’s incentive to upgrade if you want those features.

        Here’s a big differentiator though. YT has this magic algorithm that feeds you what it wants to. Creators have no say in that (nor do customers). But if I post a video you like, I want you to watch more of my videos, not videos from somebody else similar to me. YT takes full control, and sends people away just as fast as sending them in. Why would I pay for that?

        Platforms like Vimeo don’t do that (I’m not advocating vimeo, they’re just the example I think is most comparable). Wouldn’t having some level of control over that as a viewing customer and content creator have value? No, let’s just slap ads on it.

        I can also argue that this goes against my final criterea point, that YT just made things worse with their algorithm and this is just paying to remove it. There was a day where subscribing to a channel meant you got to see their videos. No bell ringing needed.

        And I’m sorry I just vomited my brain into these thoughts and wall of text. If you made it this far, bless you.

        But this is why I don’t use YT directly. I was with vanced but ended up with newpipe, because its a simple scraper. That fact not only removes ads, but it gives me control of what I watch with my time (which has value). That is the lesson YT forgot, and the root of why any of this is an issue.

        • Fubber Nuckin'@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          I was considering paying for premium at one point because i recognize the costs of YouTube and whether people like it or not, it’s run better than a lot of other sites.

          The thing that pushed me to go back to ad blocking was actually Google pushing their web environment integrity and now android webview media integrity nonsense. That alone was enough for me to start degoogling everything i could. I now see it as my moral obligation to do everything in my power not to support them.

          • Broken@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            I get that. I am mostly there too, but people go where the people are. I’ve tried Rumble and Odysee but there needs to be an exodus from YT by creators. I thought that would happen, but people stick with what they know (fear of the unknown).

            Hell, it took me a long time to jump to Lemmy. But the Reddit train went too far so I’m gone. But even now the #1 sub I was in is not represented in the fediverse so I’m SOL. Kind of a tangent, but you get what I mean.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          As far as I’m aware, the majority of money that YouTubers make comes from youtube ads.

          Youtube is also way better than pretty much every other social media (or similar) for paying their content creators.

          • Broken@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t know that to be true based on what I’ve heard. But assuming it is, it’s still clearly not enough for a creator to survive. So a “fair” payment is still required.

      • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I don’t really have a plan for this since I won’t be giving money to far-right propagandists and their spiral of rage attention algorithm.

        • tias
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          That’s fine. It just reads to me sometimes as if people in the comment sections are angry at YouTube for trying to uphold a stream of revenue, when it’s the only thing that makes the platform possible. Personally I think YouTube has been a huge boon, I’ve learned so much from people who post on the platform and I don’t want to see it go away (which is not to say that it doesn’t have huge issues). So I’m fine with paying in some manner, at least until a better alternative comes up. If you don’t think it’s worth it, great for you, go and do whatever you think brings value to your life. But I don’t understand the vitriol or sense of entitlement to getting a costly service free of charge.

            • tias
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              That’s conjecture, and so is my view, but I disagree. They’ve even developed specialized hardware just to deal with all the transcoding they have to do, specialized for YouTube. There’s a lot of effort that goes into maintaining things that are unique to this particular service. But in the end, what matters is if they could make more money by spending their resources elsewhere.

          • Danitos@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            7 months ago

            Google already gains so much money from their data-mining, privacy-violating spree on almost every person on the Earth. For me, they can burn to the ground, and I’ll very happily take their service free of charge.

            For me, it’s not just getting something for free, it is rather a who am I giving this money away?. I’ll happily give Lichess, a Lemmy stance, community projects, FOSS projects, etc. my support, financial or not, but Google, a company I completely view as unmoral, can happily go fuck itself.

            View it this way: The Coca-Cola Company killed a bunch of workers in my country (Coca-Cola killings) because they were demanding better working conditions, so I’ll do as much as possible to prevent giving them money, and making them lose money would be quite nice.

          • youmaynotknow@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The problem is not having to pay. The problem is that, even while paying, they always find a way to fuck it up by sticking another stupid factor to fuck users over. Look at Amazon Prime video for example: “prices will not increase (already paying), but we’ll slap ads unless you pay even more”.

            They all function exactly the same way. Just adding costs for the users, and never value.

          • BeamBrain [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            angry at YouTube for trying to uphold a stream of revenue, when it’s the only thing that makes the platform possible.

            In capitalist hellworld perhaps, but in any decent society such a service would be maintained by the state as a public utility.

      • Nora@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        I only pay capitalists what is absolutely necessary. I will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn’t profit driven comes along.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          I will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn’t profit driven comes along.

          I doubt that will ever happen on a big enough scale. Running a video platform is hard and very expensive and making videos is hard and expensive for the creators.

            • lud@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Sure I also use an adblocker everywhere but you should be aware that you are harming creators and not just the big companies.

              • itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I use an adblocker and sponsorblock on YouTube. I also pay for Nebula and various Patreon subscriptions/KoFi donations. In the end, I’m confident creators got more out of me than many regular users, and I’m not giving money to Google all the while.

                • lud@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Depends on if you donate to all the creators to watch or just a few.

      • phi1997@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        It should be publicly-funded, like infrastructure. Having a video sharing platform is clearly very important, but I don’t think there are any companies that are both capable of running it and trustworthy enough to do so.

      • verdigris@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Spend their money that they hoard?

        Art should not be produced for profit, because it stops being art. Ideally we would subsidize artists, or better yet provide for everyone’s needs and let them make art in their free time. Forcing us to watch corporate propaganda about fucking dishwasher detergent ain’t it.

        • tias
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          So call the shareholders and ask them to pay back the dividends that they’ve received over the years, to fund the YouTube infrastructure? That begs the question, what do we do when that money runs out?

      • kot [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        I wasnt aware that Adblock was causing Google to go bankrupt. But even if that was the case, I still wouldnt watch ads lmao.

      • freebee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        It’s actually cheaper to stream videos without ads, less traffic less diskspace ;)

        It just got pushed too far. Like Google search itself. Most people are fine with a short ad once in a while, while paying with their invaluable personal data, but they push it too far and make it unwatchable, like Google search itself became garbage because of all the Google pushed SEO bs.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.

        Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?

        • Senal@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          You’re never going to get an honest answer to this question,

          The honest answer was in the post they were originally replying to.

          I will never tolerate ads. I will give up YouTube before I watch ads.

          Youtube isn’t an existential need.

          Ad’s or bust isn’t a real dichotomy.

          Here’s another honest suggestion, drop free ad supported Youtube as a product and go full premium.

          It’d significantly reduce infrastructure costs and they’d be able to fund it with subscription monies.

          edit: used the wrong quote at the start

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      If they’re saying third party apps are fine as long as they show ads, I could see third-party apps displaying ads. And then having option to cover the add playback with a black screen, or with other content, but the default behavior would be to show the ad.

  • uuhhhhmmmm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sounds like trouble for Newpipe, Sponsorblock, etc…

    SponsorBlock isn’t affected at all, as I understood after reading an article. Why did you mention it?

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 months ago

      Will lots of people stopped using adblockers last time ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • blindsight@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    7 months ago

    Does NewPipe use the YouTube API, or is it a scraper? Also, how will this fix Vanced, that’s using the actual YouTube app?

    There are also browser extensions that just play the ads, muted, at like 100× speed. It might as well just be a tiny buffering hiccup at that speed.

    I guess we’ll need to see, but I’m not too worried.

    • PoorPocketsMcNewHold@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s a scraper. And, in theory, it shouldn’t even cause any issues with ReVanced modified Youtube patches except if they need to be updated.

      • HopingForBetter@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah, every few 18 months you’ll probably have to get the latest api and re-revance it. But unless they lock up their api somehow, revanced should be good.

    • Buttermilk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah FreeTube and NewPipe both work for me still. Might be a problem in the future, but I’m hoping I dodge by being in the weird nerd slice that isn’t worth trying to force ads to.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      It is!

      Terrible moment to learn that YouTube is banning Reporting From Ukraine though. First thing in my grayjay feed when I checked. 😒

      Fuck YouTube forever.

  • yuri@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    One of my biggest pet peeves recently has been people trying to show me <30 second videos on their phone, and having to sit through a full ass 30 second advertisement. It takes such minimal effort to block the ads, you’ll make up the time invested within a week.

    And you know what, as I’m typing this I’m realizing it’s not purely the ads that are annoying. Just don’t fucken show people random 30 second meme videos in person, it’s annoying as shit. Send a link or something, we all have phones.

    /rant

    • PixeIOrange@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      30 seconds arent that bad.

      I once was forced to a five minutes video. Five minutes of pure cringe can feel like hours.

    • dyc3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Part of the enjoyment I get from sharing memes is seeing/hearing the reaction from the person I’m showing it to. The ads just fuck up the whole vibe.

    • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel this. If you’re holding your phone up to my face it better be something off your own camera roll.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile.

    In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”

    It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.

    But now, YouTube says its policies don’t allow “third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership.” This appears to target mobile ad blockers like AdGuard, which lets you open YouTube within the ad blocking app, where you’ll get to view videos interruption-free.

    “When we find an app that violates these terms, we will take appropriate action to protect our platform, creators, and viewers.”

    This likely won’t come as pleasant news to all the users who watch YouTube through ad blocking apps, but it doesn’t look like YouTube is backing down in its battle against ad blockers anytime soon.


    The original article contains 220 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 25%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Folks, Just read the extra 55 words in the article. Most of you wont spend a dime on journalism of any kind, at least fully read the articles your interested in.

      • astraeus@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        And give “the verge” some ad revenue? Or potentially have their trackers on my phone/computer? Nah I’m good.

        • Imprint9816@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          My bad i assumed people on this sub had the amateur knowledge required to protect themselves and/or avoid the 5 trackers on the site.

          Your right though, if clicking a link to theverge is such a massive risk for you, then not reading articles is probably least of your concerns.

        • MinekPo1@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          And give “the verge” some ad revenue?

          Wait you don’t have an ad blocker ? (to be fair I use an adblocker which does pretend to watch and click ads thus giving the verge ad revenue)

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Last year, YouTube “launched a global effort” to encourage users to allow ads while watching videos or upgrade to YouTube Premium. It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.

        “We only allow third-party apps to use our API when they follow our API Services Terms of Service,” YouTube says.

        To get around this, YouTube once again suggests signing up for the ad-free YouTube Premium.

        Not much gained tbh

      • jnk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        This bot is saving me from having to open the “article”, try to decipher SEO bullshit modern journalism just to find shitpost like this, eat some ads, and unavoidable (at least on mobile) trackers, js, etc. Also personally hate link posts, i wish people put this kind of summaries in the actual post.

        Just ignore/block the bot and move on.

  • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    7 months ago

    I mean…yeah, of course this was going to happen. Did people think they would ignore 3rd party apps providing a work around for their ad block?

  • Coskii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Whatever the default ad blocker is on opera works fine, always has. Once in a blue moon I’ll see a frame of an ad, but it skips directly after.