It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.
firefox and ublock origin has existed all along cmon, ditch that spyware already whats the holdup, what makes people so damn allergic to using anything other than chrome
I literally don’t know what people who say this mean. It looks totally modern, almost identical to the chrome and edge UIs, it’s fully customizable, and there are thousands of extensions to alter the appearance in a single click, not to mention custom css styling if you want complete control.
This won’t change your mobile experience, but on desktop this makes Firefox absolutely gorgeous. I’ve been using it for at least a year now and it still blows me away every time I happen to see the stock UI.
How is the mobile app terrible? I’ve been using it for years with no issues, and it has many extensions that chrome on Android doesn’t allow like adblocking.
The tabs in FF are great, for years now FF has been much better at handing huge accounts of passive tabs, and there are tons of extensions to provide any functionality you could want.
I guarantee you if you just install a few extensions that you like and use it for a week you won’t even notice any more.
What the fuck? Can you sync chrome to edge and edge to opera? What kind of bad faith bullshit ass argument are you trying to pull here?
You’re claiming that you cant sync data on Firefox, when you absolutely can. Then you claim that what you meant was that you cant cross browser sync on multiple devices. Well congratufuckinglations, you can’t on any other browser either.
What’s wrong with you? Are you unable to read my comment, or is it comprehension problems?
I’m saying if I switch to Firefox, I have to switch it on both PC and mobile, but I hate the UI on mobile. I can’t leave one as Chrome (mobile) and the other as Firefox (PC) and expect them to work together (sync). Thus, I’d rather stock to Chrome because the ui is better.
Are there any semi-popular alternative browsers still based on WebKit? I thought most of them like Brave and Vivaldi were based on Chromium’s Blink rather than WebKit.
Technically not really, I just said WebKit to avoid breaking down the whole fork situation in my comment. Blink isn’t that different in reality so, WebKit for simplicity. Safari and Chrome are much closer to one another than Firefox is to either, so 🤷♂️
The problem with YouTube Premium is the pricing tiers are completely out of touch with what people are willing to pay and what services they’re willing to pay for.
Let me compare to Discovery+. For $9 a month, loads of shows that ran on TV for decades can be streamed at 1080p (or whatever resolution they were available in), on up to four devices at the same time. They still have some original shows that they spend money to make. This service does not have ads.
Let’s also compare to Nebula, which like Discovery+ also has original content funded by the platform. Every content creator there is also an invited owner of the platform, so their cost structure is a bit different, but they still have to sustain the costs of running a streaming platform while compensating the creators of said content for views. Nebula is a microscopic $5 a month per user with no ads.
YouTube is a platform with entirely user-generated content (costs YT nothing except bandwidth) that is already supported at the free tier with a gratuitous amount of ads. This service has been available completely free with ad support for nearly two decades. The lowest “premium” tier they offer is $14 a month for one person to stream ad-free, at a better 1080p bitrate, be able to download videos or watch them in the background in the official app, pay creators for every view, and have a music streaming app thrown in for good measure. The only other tier is all the same stuff in a $22 monthly family plan for six users, but they all have to be in the same “household” or you’re technically breaking TOS, so in practice it’s often more like $22 for three people, and heaven forbid any of you travel for work.
Two of the “premium” features should be free anyway. You can’t watch a video without downloading it at least once, so the bandwidth cost is the same. If you download it and play it more than once, that actually saves YouTube bandwidth, and therefore cost. Any video that’s played more than once is probably going to be played a lot more than once, so this would add up, especially if the app downloads the ad spots ahead of time. Background play doesn’t cost them any bandwidth at all and is a trivial feature to implement, so it’s put behind a paywall as an artificial restriction for no other reason than to annoy users for not paying. Both of these are anti-features; to charge for them is anti-consumer. They engender spite in users, making them less willing to pay for Premium and more determined to find alternatives.
Instead of trying to figure out what people are actually willing to pay for, which is the expected behavior of a market actor, Google continues to behave like a monopoly that can dictate terms to its users. This is why people refuse to pay for Premium. If they made the anti-features free, and introduced a Premium tier that is $7 a month to one user for nothing more than better bitrate streaming with no ads, people would sign up in droves. There could be a $9 tier for streaming boxes like Roku or Chromecast that offers Premium service for any account viewed from that one specific device, without having to sign up each individual account for premium, which satisfies another niche. The $14 tier could remain for those who also want music streaming (an extra $7 is still much cheaper than Spotify premium), and the $22 tier could still be a significant value proposition for actual families.
It’s not that the price offered for the $14 premium plan isn’t reasonable for what it offers - the issue is that what it offers doesn’t match the actual needs of many people who use adblockers or third-party clients, on top of insulting users with anti-features. Until YouTube management can be made to understand this, they will continue to screech impotently about ad-blockers while driving users away and leaving potential revenue on the table.
Ofcourse you always get youtube music with the subscription, which they claim ads extra value. But I dont want youtube music, I already pay for another service. So for me it would be a waste of money
As soon as 3rd party clients don’t work as they do anymore, I am stopping going to YouTube. Simple as, I know it doesn’t matter as a singular thing, I am just one user. Was the same with reddit, now I am here but reddit is still going (how well we don’t need to debate now).
The company shut down one of the most popular third-party apps, “YouTube Vanced,” in 2022.
Vanced takes the official YouTube Android client and installs a duplicate, alternative version with a bunch of patches.
It also adds features the official app doesn’t have, like additional themes and accessibility features, “repeat” and “dislike” buttons, and the ability to turn off addictive “suggestions” that appear all over the app.
Rather than going after the projects, Google says it’s going to start disrupting users who are using these apps.
The company continues: “We want to emphasize that our terms don’t allow third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership, and Ads on YouTube help support creators and let billions of people around the world use the streaming service.”
If you remember back to when Google aggressively fought to keep third-party YouTube apps off of Windows Phone, the company seemed to take a similar stance against all third-party YouTube clients, even if they wanted to integrate ads.
The original article contains 344 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Fuck them. I’d rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.
The issue is not only the ads, it’s the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it’s the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it’s every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn’t work for you, it works against you. That’s not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.
Are they going to officially allow third party apps at all? The stock app is terrible, and not just because of excessive, unskippable advertising and bizarre restrictions around background play. When you search for anything, at least half of the results are completely unrelated to what you searched for in an attempt to increase user engagement metrics. It keeps trying to get you to watch shorts in its bad TikTok clone. Sometimes it recommends unrelated shorts with disturbing thumbnails in the middle of your search results. It keeps autodetecting that the video quality should be 360p on a connection easily capable of 4k, and resetting back to 360p at the start of every new video. The UI for live streams puts things on top of other things that are more important.
Search shows you random videos because “the algorithm” is hoping to drive you through to videos that are the most monetized and the most likely to keep you on the platform based on their data
The shorts thing is because they can pack more ads into 15 second bits of content while using less bandwidth and they’re hoping to hijack your attention with an “endless stream” of short clips a la TikTok or instagram reels
The video bandwidth drops to low every time because they’re hoping people will still watch, see the ads, and not bump the quality up, saving Google on bandwidth costs
The live streams thing is just more advertising revenue again
None of that applies if you’re a paying customer like me, and I see all the same bs. So no, it’s really just bad design, it’s not trying to do any of the stuff you mentioned.
Even that’s just a monetary decision. They are choosing not to spend money to build a custom “premium” experience for paying customers and instead just stripping ads, keeping the existing engagement/monetization driven UI in place. A customized UI takes more dev time, costs more in engineering labor, etc
The live streams thing is not about advertising. Problems like putting the hearts button on top of the chat instead of next to the chat or having the chat cover up the entire left side of the stream every time a single message is sent are just because they don’t care.
I’ve been using youtube on Firefox with ublock since the premium price raise. Even on android.
The experience is not great, but that makes sure I don’t have ads at all.
Also discovered unhooked addon yesterday. Is desktop only, but great for going into less youtube rabbit holes that waste my time.
If they’re going to find it on lemmy they’re going to find it anywhere. Also, they already know about ublock origin, and its unlikely they’d even care about unhooked, since it doesn’t block ads.
Like - Google’s pre-installed corporate Firefox and Chrome both have ad blockers. Ublock origin is installed by default on Firefox (I can’t remember what was installed on chrome, I only used it for the work suite/cloudtop and did everything else on FF).
Nobody I worked with at Google liked ads… But I didn’t work at YouTube. So maybe it’s different there.
But I suspect the engineers are doing it just to show management that they’re doing something but it’s half hearted.
Real efforts and real threats of it getting locked down, sure, but half hearted effort.
That content does not belong to YouTube. And they also do not pay for 99% of it.
YouTube depends on people to use it for it’s existence. They also depend on those users to upload content so that YouTube can then treat that content as if it is its own and monetize it.
If I was in such a precarious position I wouldn’t go about making the experience crappy for those users that I’m desperately dependent upon.
That’s nice. Do they also create the content for the platform that is by far the most costly part of it? Or have they simply found a way to monetize content that does not belong to them?
Does every single creator get paid for their work and the value that they add to the platform? Or does YouTube arbitrarily get to decide who gets a tiny piece of the revenue from the content that YouTube doesn’t own?
Please download and archive your favorite channels and videos!
Host them yourself to watch them locally.
Especially do this for educational material, share it wide and far!
We are entering a very dark age of techno-dystopia, we need to fight it with everything we have. Pirate, seed, screen-record, download, archive, share, never give up.
Made a script/cron job to auto dl new videos from my favorite channels with ytdlp and then they are hosted through jellyfin. Archived forever, ad free, accessible to me from anywhere.
I also recommend NewPipe for Android. It lets you download in multiple formats and shows comments in a mobile format (you can get it through the F-Droid store or from github.)
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
It’s funny how this comes after Chrome’s switch to Manifest V3, which makes ad blocking not possible on Chrome and was purely for security reasons and not for disabling ad blockers. Now that Chrome users can’t block ads on the first-party site, they’re going after third-party clients. Such coincidental timing.
Has that actually rolled out yet? I thought it was only announced and planned for late this year.
I had not heard of Manifest v3 and actually can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. I guess you are.
They’re not being sarcastic, they are repeating Google’s (bs) justification
They are being sarcastic, with the emphasis on “purely”, while saying Google’s justification. It’s exactly to point out it’s bs.
yes exactly what sneezycat said. I was being sarcastic and pointing out that Manifest V3 was always a crackdown on ad blocking and nothing else.
Sure, I guess I maintain its that’s not what sarcasm is but we do agree on the point
If it is not sarcasm then the justification is not bs. And OP agrees it is sarcasm.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/googles-manifest-v3-still-hurts-privacy-security-innovation
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/chrome-users-beware-manifest-v3-deceitful-and-threatening
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/11/google-chrome-will-limit-ad-blockers-starting-june-2024/
They’ve been trying for years to implement this at a large price to the users. They always try to hide under the guise of security.
https://www.ghacks.net/2024/04/16/google-intensifies-fight-against-youtube-adblockers/
https://lemmy.ml/post/14446619
Man they’re fucking out of their minds!!!
I only care about how this will affect Floorp’s user agent spoofing abilities thought 😶🌫️🌫️
deleted by creator
firefox!!!
firefox and ublock origin has existed all along cmon, ditch that spyware already whats the holdup, what makes people so damn allergic to using anything other than chrome
deleted by creator
I literally don’t know what people who say this mean. It looks totally modern, almost identical to the chrome and edge UIs, it’s fully customizable, and there are thousands of extensions to alter the appearance in a single click, not to mention custom css styling if you want complete control.
https://github.com/black7375/Firefox-UI-Fix
This won’t change your mobile experience, but on desktop this makes Firefox absolutely gorgeous. I’ve been using it for at least a year now and it still blows me away every time I happen to see the stock UI.
deleted by creator
How is the mobile app terrible? I’ve been using it for years with no issues, and it has many extensions that chrome on Android doesn’t allow like adblocking.
The tabs in FF are great, for years now FF has been much better at handing huge accounts of passive tabs, and there are tons of extensions to provide any functionality you could want.
I guarantee you if you just install a few extensions that you like and use it for a week you won’t even notice any more.
ive been using it for (quite) a while and its always looked like a carbon copy of every other browser and vice versa
There’s only so much you can do on a mobile browser to be fair, they all look the same
deleted by creator
There are a ton of other WebKit/Blink based browsers to choose from! Safari, Vivaldi, Brave… not to mention good old Firefox and Gecko!
deleted by creator
Firefox has had data sync for a long ass time.
It’s even end-to-end encrypted!
deleted by creator
What the fuck? Can you sync chrome to edge and edge to opera? What kind of bad faith bullshit ass argument are you trying to pull here?
You’re claiming that you cant sync data on Firefox, when you absolutely can. Then you claim that what you meant was that you cant cross browser sync on multiple devices. Well congratufuckinglations, you can’t on any other browser either.
What is wrong with you?
What’s wrong with you? Are you unable to read my comment, or is it comprehension problems?
I’m saying if I switch to Firefox, I have to switch it on both PC and mobile, but I hate the UI on mobile. I can’t leave one as Chrome (mobile) and the other as Firefox (PC) and expect them to work together (sync). Thus, I’d rather stock to Chrome because the ui is better.
I mean… yes? If you’re saying that Chrome sucks now, then why would you want to switch on some platforms but not others?
You can use the session on your desktop on the go automatically on Firefox.
The mobile app is great.
Are there any semi-popular alternative browsers still based on WebKit? I thought most of them like Brave and Vivaldi were based on Chromium’s Blink rather than WebKit.
Technically not really, I just said WebKit to avoid breaking down the whole fork situation in my comment. Blink isn’t that different in reality so, WebKit for simplicity. Safari and Chrome are much closer to one another than Firefox is to either, so 🤷♂️
Vivaldi and Brave use Blink (Chromium), not WebKit
They are practically the same thing.
Uh, no? They’re absolutely not the same.
“security reasons” is the classic cop-out for making users lives more miserable.
Like what are you gonna do, argue that you don’t care about security?
The problem with YouTube Premium is the pricing tiers are completely out of touch with what people are willing to pay and what services they’re willing to pay for.
Let me compare to Discovery+. For $9 a month, loads of shows that ran on TV for decades can be streamed at 1080p (or whatever resolution they were available in), on up to four devices at the same time. They still have some original shows that they spend money to make. This service does not have ads.
Let’s also compare to Nebula, which like Discovery+ also has original content funded by the platform. Every content creator there is also an invited owner of the platform, so their cost structure is a bit different, but they still have to sustain the costs of running a streaming platform while compensating the creators of said content for views. Nebula is a microscopic $5 a month per user with no ads.
YouTube is a platform with entirely user-generated content (costs YT nothing except bandwidth) that is already supported at the free tier with a gratuitous amount of ads. This service has been available completely free with ad support for nearly two decades. The lowest “premium” tier they offer is $14 a month for one person to stream ad-free, at a better 1080p bitrate, be able to download videos or watch them in the background in the official app, pay creators for every view, and have a music streaming app thrown in for good measure. The only other tier is all the same stuff in a $22 monthly family plan for six users, but they all have to be in the same “household” or you’re technically breaking TOS, so in practice it’s often more like $22 for three people, and heaven forbid any of you travel for work.
Two of the “premium” features should be free anyway. You can’t watch a video without downloading it at least once, so the bandwidth cost is the same. If you download it and play it more than once, that actually saves YouTube bandwidth, and therefore cost. Any video that’s played more than once is probably going to be played a lot more than once, so this would add up, especially if the app downloads the ad spots ahead of time. Background play doesn’t cost them any bandwidth at all and is a trivial feature to implement, so it’s put behind a paywall as an artificial restriction for no other reason than to annoy users for not paying. Both of these are anti-features; to charge for them is anti-consumer. They engender spite in users, making them less willing to pay for Premium and more determined to find alternatives.
Instead of trying to figure out what people are actually willing to pay for, which is the expected behavior of a market actor, Google continues to behave like a monopoly that can dictate terms to its users. This is why people refuse to pay for Premium. If they made the anti-features free, and introduced a Premium tier that is $7 a month to one user for nothing more than better bitrate streaming with no ads, people would sign up in droves. There could be a $9 tier for streaming boxes like Roku or Chromecast that offers Premium service for any account viewed from that one specific device, without having to sign up each individual account for premium, which satisfies another niche. The $14 tier could remain for those who also want music streaming (an extra $7 is still much cheaper than Spotify premium), and the $22 tier could still be a significant value proposition for actual families.
It’s not that the price offered for the $14 premium plan isn’t reasonable for what it offers - the issue is that what it offers doesn’t match the actual needs of many people who use adblockers or third-party clients, on top of insulting users with anti-features. Until YouTube management can be made to understand this, they will continue to screech impotently about ad-blockers while driving users away and leaving potential revenue on the table.
Ofcourse you always get youtube music with the subscription, which they claim ads extra value. But I dont want youtube music, I already pay for another service. So for me it would be a waste of money
I pay for the family plan and they use google music. I use pandora because my station is older than my 16yo niece that’s on my yt plan.
removed by mod
As soon as 3rd party clients don’t work as they do anymore, I am stopping going to YouTube. Simple as, I know it doesn’t matter as a singular thing, I am just one user. Was the same with reddit, now I am here but reddit is still going (how well we don’t need to debate now).
You’re not alone. Don’t think that. A lot of people will do the same. I’m right there with ya. Fuck YouTube
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The company shut down one of the most popular third-party apps, “YouTube Vanced,” in 2022.
Vanced takes the official YouTube Android client and installs a duplicate, alternative version with a bunch of patches.
It also adds features the official app doesn’t have, like additional themes and accessibility features, “repeat” and “dislike” buttons, and the ability to turn off addictive “suggestions” that appear all over the app.
Rather than going after the projects, Google says it’s going to start disrupting users who are using these apps.
The company continues: “We want to emphasize that our terms don’t allow third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership, and Ads on YouTube help support creators and let billions of people around the world use the streaming service.”
If you remember back to when Google aggressively fought to keep third-party YouTube apps off of Windows Phone, the company seemed to take a similar stance against all third-party YouTube clients, even if they wanted to integrate ads.
The original article contains 344 words, the summary contains 170 words. Saved 51%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Fuck them. I’d rather donate quadruple the money for premium to my favourite creators directly than give a single penny to this parasitic mega corporation.
The issue is not only the ads, it’s the stupid shit it throws you to keep you hooked, it’s the stupid shorts that literally no one asked for, it’s every stupid little thing that fights for your attention. Basically the app doesn’t work for you, it works against you. That’s not the case with third party apps, they have you, the user, in mind, not their profits.
This is just ads. They know that people will fight back and found a solution.
They want some to think it’s dead.
Hey Google, FUCK YOU.
Are they going to officially allow third party apps at all? The stock app is terrible, and not just because of excessive, unskippable advertising and bizarre restrictions around background play. When you search for anything, at least half of the results are completely unrelated to what you searched for in an attempt to increase user engagement metrics. It keeps trying to get you to watch shorts in its bad TikTok clone. Sometimes it recommends unrelated shorts with disturbing thumbnails in the middle of your search results. It keeps autodetecting that the video quality should be 360p on a connection easily capable of 4k, and resetting back to 360p at the start of every new video. The UI for live streams puts things on top of other things that are more important.
And all of those come down to money
Search shows you random videos because “the algorithm” is hoping to drive you through to videos that are the most monetized and the most likely to keep you on the platform based on their data
The shorts thing is because they can pack more ads into 15 second bits of content while using less bandwidth and they’re hoping to hijack your attention with an “endless stream” of short clips a la TikTok or instagram reels
The video bandwidth drops to low every time because they’re hoping people will still watch, see the ads, and not bump the quality up, saving Google on bandwidth costs
The live streams thing is just more advertising revenue again
None of that applies if you’re a paying customer like me, and I see all the same bs. So no, it’s really just bad design, it’s not trying to do any of the stuff you mentioned.
Even that’s just a monetary decision. They are choosing not to spend money to build a custom “premium” experience for paying customers and instead just stripping ads, keeping the existing engagement/monetization driven UI in place. A customized UI takes more dev time, costs more in engineering labor, etc
Why would they design it to be any better if you’re still willing to pay for it?
The live streams thing is not about advertising. Problems like putting the hearts button on top of the chat instead of next to the chat or having the chat cover up the entire left side of the stream every time a single message is sent are just because they don’t care.
there’s nothing bizarre about it - the free version is shitty on purpose
They already do but it’s pretty restrictive in what can be changed about the experience:
https://developers.google.com/youtube/terms/developer-policies-guide#examples_3
As soon as I have to see shorts, YouTube is dead to me. I hate the format with a passion.
I’ve been using youtube on Firefox with ublock since the premium price raise. Even on android. The experience is not great, but that makes sure I don’t have ads at all.
Also discovered unhooked addon yesterday. Is desktop only, but great for going into less youtube rabbit holes that waste my time.
don’t make solutions popular.
It’s lemmy, world’s smallest social media platform. We’ll be fine :p
That’s sad but it’s true 😢
Yeah but things get popular here, we tell our family and friends, they go out and tell people…
We disdain to hide sauce that could benefit the people. We don’t bogart knowledge like a settler would.
I’m simply saying what happens. For good or for ill.
Howso? You think even in the event this wasn’t being scraped, that there isn’t a single dev from YouTube, or a YouTube adjacent team possibly here?
There’s a large (relative) tech worker user base on Lemmy.
It was a joke.
And I think they are very much aware of uBlock. Unhooked got recommended to me by a Youtube video.
They know.
If they’re going to find it on lemmy they’re going to find it anywhere. Also, they already know about ublock origin, and its unlikely they’d even care about unhooked, since it doesn’t block ads.
“there’s all this litter on the ground I’ll just throw my litter”
Not a remotely relevant comparison, and even if it was, completely ignores my second point.
If you suck at critical thinking sure
Edit I’m not obligated to address every point, this aint debate club
Imagine buying premium to watch videos riddled with ads and sponsors in the video itself.
This format just isn’t making any sense for me, they would’ve implemented something as sponsorblock years ago
Not again … Well, let’s wait a week or so for the clients to fix that.
My newpipe 😔
I’ve mostly only noticed that the comments won’t load, not a big loss imo
There’s already a patch for comments in the release candidate for the new version
Likewise but im sure it wont stop there
I think Google engineers drag their feet on this.
Like - Google’s pre-installed corporate Firefox and Chrome both have ad blockers. Ublock origin is installed by default on Firefox (I can’t remember what was installed on chrome, I only used it for the work suite/cloudtop and did everything else on FF).
Nobody I worked with at Google liked ads… But I didn’t work at YouTube. So maybe it’s different there.
But I suspect the engineers are doing it just to show management that they’re doing something but it’s half hearted.
Real efforts and real threats of it getting locked down, sure, but half hearted effort.
I switched them off by default.
That content does not belong to YouTube. And they also do not pay for 99% of it.
YouTube depends on people to use it for it’s existence. They also depend on those users to upload content so that YouTube can then treat that content as if it is its own and monetize it.
If I was in such a precarious position I wouldn’t go about making the experience crappy for those users that I’m desperately dependent upon.
youtube hosts, handles bandwidth, provides creator tools, deals with monetization, handles royalties, and creates the platform…
That’s nice. Do they also create the content for the platform that is by far the most costly part of it? Or have they simply found a way to monetize content that does not belong to them?
a) without youtube, creators wouldn’t have a platform b) they’re monetizing it to pay creators.
Does every single creator get paid for their work and the value that they add to the platform? Or does YouTube arbitrarily get to decide who gets a tiny piece of the revenue from the content that YouTube doesn’t own?
Also, use greyjay. It’s fantastic.
Please download and archive your favorite channels and videos!
Host them yourself to watch them locally.
Especially do this for educational material, share it wide and far!
We are entering a very dark age of techno-dystopia, we need to fight it with everything we have. Pirate, seed, screen-record, download, archive, share, never give up.
This is the way.
Quick shout out to yt-dlp. It comes everything you need to download, transcode, and even use Sponsorblock!
Made a script/cron job to auto dl new videos from my favorite channels with ytdlp and then they are hosted through jellyfin. Archived forever, ad free, accessible to me from anywhere.
Another quick shout out to Tube Archivist, it’s perfect for archiving YouTube videos
I also recommend NewPipe for Android. It lets you download in multiple formats and shows comments in a mobile format (you can get it through the F-Droid store or from github.)
FreeTube for Windows. Finally stable, download options, subs, history, ex-/importable data, locally, no ads of course. It’s awesome!
Next to KDEconnect, I freaking love Freetube. Just a nice application
Btw FreeTube is not just available for Windows, it also works perfectly on Linux and macOS