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
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.
Yup. At the end of the day, YouTube provides two resources: entertainment and information. Given that I’m willing to drop any particular creator or show, which I am, entertainment can always be found elsewhere. Worst case, I suffer a little bit of FOMO. And information in the internet ecosystem is like water in nature; it finds a way to keep flowing around
Let’s pause a moment and just appreciate how much money Alphabet actually make net (after expenses). $73,795,000,000 last year - higher than the GDP of entire nations, in profit.
The “bad” year, 2022 that drove all this change, they only made $59,972,000,000 net. Oh how terrible (!)
5 years ago, they made $34,343,000,000 net, so they’ve more than doubled profits.
Take a moment to appreciate that, and really consider if they “need” the money.
And as we know companies prefer to provide a service with a loss, for decades. Name a company that can make -31.5 billion and keep going.
Or maybe the data went to google, where they made the money.
Yeah, unfortunately I couldn’t find revenue numbers. It seems unlikely to be costing that much to host. I’d be really surprised to learn it isn’t cash positive at this point.
Heads up, “I’ve” is not grammatically correct when “have” is your verb. Using “have” in a contraction when you’re using past-perfect tense. For example, “I’ve been” is an acceptable shortening of “I have been”.
Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.
“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.
Yeah, not “incorrect,” just non-standard. The yardstick is: did your interpretation match the intended one? Clearly, he was able to get there so it’s firmly in “acceptable use.” Any further whinging about grammar is likely to just be construed as gatekeeping.
The yardstick is: did your interpretation match the intended one?
I think that’s just you. There’s a few examples of rules in English that aren’t required to get a point across, but sentences that break them sound grating. One such example is adjective order
As a native BrE speaker I’d say “I’ve X installed” is a little weird, fine in speech but written down it doesn’t look right. “I’ve installed X” is fine.
Nebula is really good. I just bought a lifetime sub. Expensive but pays itself back in only a few years. Plus the creators there run it as a coop that has a takeover poison pill of some kind.
@rbos@EverlastongOS that’s the only thing I don’t understand. If it’s lifetime sub, how do they fund their costs from your usage after?
Host providers don’t have a one-time payment lifetime subscription for bandwidth usage. Eventually you will surpass the bandwidth cost of your lifetime sub and they’d be losing money keeping you. Something doesn’t feel right.
It can work out financially - I don’t know how they do it specifically, but suppose they put all the lifetime subs into one investment pool and used the interest on that to fund operations.
$300 can generate $20 per year for them. So I benefit by only having to pay once, and they benefit by getting a chunk up front instead of having it drip out over time.
Up front cash can also mean the ability to invest in larger things. They can put it into infra budget instead of ops budget.
@rbos yea, that sounds similar to what a lot of these monopolistic internet companies do. But eventually the bill is due.
If they can’t scale up with what they got, then maybe it isn’t profitable. But what I’m understanding is that they’re using “Lifetime Users” as a gamble to grow.
hmmm… maybe I just don’t like private infrastructure, but I’m at odds with this model. But if the users understand that the bubble can burst, then I wish them luck.
There are some ski lifts that give lifetime passes. Its used as a cash injection to fund investments rather than lending off an institution that will want their money back.
Sure you’ll want your lifetime video data for free, but I bet there are a bunch of lifetime members that don’t watch much over a lifetime and/or the risk of future video watching outweighs the loan interest they’d have to pay otherwise.
@b_n
For me, it boils down to this: relying solely on cash injections to scale up seems short-sighted. Bandwidth costs are often underestimated, especially for high-quality video streaming. If users’ lifetime costs outweigh bandwidth expenses, the injection could turn into a liability. I’m concerned about the sustainability of their model. Unlike a ski-lift company that generates revenue from various sources (food, merch, rentals).
Maybe my hosting knowledge is just too old school.
That’s just the case. Not everyone buys lifetime subscriptions. This is a short term cash injection for investment. I don’t know their books, but I doubt the majority of their long term income will come from these lifetime subs.
Depends on where you get it. Recently had to go through and find another version, as mine was detected by YouTube and just said to download the official version of YouTube to play videos.
You need to get better at language. Let me help you with an example someone autistic can easily understand.
You’re working at a restaurant as a waiter. You’re in charge of some tables. Your coworker says to you “Your party in the back corner asked for one of the apple pies.”. Did your co-worker just say you owned people?
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
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.
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
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’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.
Some of the youtube channels I watch also have channels on Peertube instances or on Odysee. Both options allow me to follow using RSS. I prefer my views to go to these platforms, so hopefully more content creators see these as viable hosts for their videos.
Peertube is also federated, so you can follow channels from your Mastodon account (and I think Lemmy too). You could also spin up your own instance if you like too.
I assume you help and financially support your instance of choice to help them with server costs? Video platforms are much more expensive to host than text platforms like mastodon or lemmy.
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
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.
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.
I’ll just use Firefox mobile with uBlock Origin then, literally anything is better than ads
Firefox Mobile supports SponsorBlock too. uBO+SponsorBlock is the best thing ever happened to Youtube so far.
And when that stops working, I’ll just stop watching any YouTube videos.
Yup. At the end of the day, YouTube provides two resources: entertainment and information. Given that I’m willing to drop any particular creator or show, which I am, entertainment can always be found elsewhere. Worst case, I suffer a little bit of FOMO. And information in the internet ecosystem is like water in nature; it finds a way to keep flowing around
https://www.statista.com/statistics/513049/alphabet-annual-global-income/
Let’s pause a moment and just appreciate how much money Alphabet actually make net (after expenses). $73,795,000,000 last year - higher than the GDP of entire nations, in profit.
The “bad” year, 2022 that drove all this change, they only made $59,972,000,000 net. Oh how terrible (!)
5 years ago, they made $34,343,000,000 net, so they’ve more than doubled profits.
Take a moment to appreciate that, and really consider if they “need” the money.
That’s the whole company. How much did YouTube lose for them?
YouTube lost google -31.5 billion in 2023, approximately 10% of all of alphabet’s revenue.
And as we know companies prefer to provide a service with a loss, for decades. Name a company that can make -31.5 billion and keep going. Or maybe the data went to google, where they made the money.
Not made -31.5 billion. Lost -31.5 billion. As in they brought in that much, not cost it.
I was genuinely confused by this statistic until I realised it was a double negative. YouTube losen’t Google a lot of money.
Yeah, sorry, sometimes I can’t help my need to play with language, when given the slightest chance.
Revenue is not profit
Yeah, unfortunately I couldn’t find revenue numbers. It seems unlikely to be costing that much to host. I’d be really surprised to learn it isn’t cash positive at this point.
Best I could find is the entire division makes about 35% profit and you’d have to assume some of that was YouTube
Do they somehow calculate in this the value off the youtube harvested user data that serves other Google branches? No, right?
Shareholders: you doubled your profit last year, so I expect you to do it again this year.
And kill the entire planet in the process if you need to.
Pretty much. Capitalism is completely unsustainable.
*we expect you to do better than that
There, fify
I’ve Invidious hosted on my Little Raspberry Pi 4, and using it’s WPA app on every device I got.
Zero ad + Decent UI + Access to highest video quality
https://invidious.io/
Heads up, “I’ve” is not grammatically correct when “have” is your verb. Using “have” in a contraction when you’re using past-perfect tense. For example, “I’ve been” is an acceptable shortening of “I have been”.
Is it actually incorrect? I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong, but it just sounds bizarre or Shakespearean if you use it when it’s not an auxiliary verb.
“I’ve no need for that.” is a perfectly cromulent sentence.
Yeah, not “incorrect,” just non-standard. The yardstick is: did your interpretation match the intended one? Clearly, he was able to get there so it’s firmly in “acceptable use.” Any further whinging about grammar is likely to just be construed as gatekeeping.
I think that’s just you. There’s a few examples of rules in English that aren’t required to get a point across, but sentences that break them sound grating. One such example is adjective order
I think you’re conflating correctness with comprehension. Even if it isn’t correct, you could still be understood.
Per your previous comment:
I’m not the one conflating the two concepts.
Don’t worry, one day you’ll understand.
I’m a prescriptivist and I think it’s fine. I suspect it might be a British vs American English thing.
As a native BrE speaker I’d say “I’ve X installed” is a little weird, fine in speech but written down it doesn’t look right. “I’ve installed X” is fine.
Since this change from google I have constant buffering issues on my home invidious instance, need to try updating my docker when I get home.
Will this change on YouTube’s side affect Invidious instances?
I wonder too.
If they go full “only google certified browsers and clients” I will just not watch youtube anymore
Start to use other services like Odysee or Elacity Cinema…
Nebula is really good. I just bought a lifetime sub. Expensive but pays itself back in only a few years. Plus the creators there run it as a coop that has a takeover poison pill of some kind.
I like Nebula but it’s not comparable to YouTube and isnt supposed to be .
I didn’t say it was. I watch Youtube as well. Do not put words in my mouth.
This is a perfect example of someone saying “I like beans” and someone responding “WELL YOU MUST HATE TOMATOES THEN YOU NAZI LOVER” or something. :P
you just Godwin’s Lawed yourself dumdum
@rbos @EverlastongOS that’s the only thing I don’t understand. If it’s lifetime sub, how do they fund their costs from your usage after?
Host providers don’t have a one-time payment lifetime subscription for bandwidth usage. Eventually you will surpass the bandwidth cost of your lifetime sub and they’d be losing money keeping you. Something doesn’t feel right.
The CEO of Nebula actually has two blog posts about the economics of their lifetime memberships.
https://blog.nebula.tv/lifetime-memberships-part-two/
It can work out financially - I don’t know how they do it specifically, but suppose they put all the lifetime subs into one investment pool and used the interest on that to fund operations.
$300 can generate $20 per year for them. So I benefit by only having to pay once, and they benefit by getting a chunk up front instead of having it drip out over time.
Up front cash can also mean the ability to invest in larger things. They can put it into infra budget instead of ops budget.
@rbos yea, that sounds similar to what a lot of these monopolistic internet companies do. But eventually the bill is due.
If they can’t scale up with what they got, then maybe it isn’t profitable. But what I’m understanding is that they’re using “Lifetime Users” as a gamble to grow.
hmmm… maybe I just don’t like private infrastructure, but I’m at odds with this model. But if the users understand that the bubble can burst, then I wish them luck.
I’m hoping that Nebula, being run as a coop, will avoid much of that ‘growth at any cost’ mindset.
There are some ski lifts that give lifetime passes. Its used as a cash injection to fund investments rather than lending off an institution that will want their money back.
Sure you’ll want your lifetime video data for free, but I bet there are a bunch of lifetime members that don’t watch much over a lifetime and/or the risk of future video watching outweighs the loan interest they’d have to pay otherwise.
@b_n
For me, it boils down to this: relying solely on cash injections to scale up seems short-sighted. Bandwidth costs are often underestimated, especially for high-quality video streaming. If users’ lifetime costs outweigh bandwidth expenses, the injection could turn into a liability. I’m concerned about the sustainability of their model. Unlike a ski-lift company that generates revenue from various sources (food, merch, rentals).
Maybe my hosting knowledge is just too old school.
That’s just the case. Not everyone buys lifetime subscriptions. This is a short term cash injection for investment. I don’t know their books, but I doubt the majority of their long term income will come from these lifetime subs.
I can’t wait for that platform to implode.
They’ve been trying for a minute. Must be different now that they’re saying it!
Checks notes
Nope, revanced still works.
Depends on where you get it. Recently had to go through and find another version, as mine was detected by YouTube and just said to download the official version of YouTube to play videos.
Same. Gotta keep in the game.
That’s because revanced is still youtubes app, just lightly modified.
If I put my dick in your girl, is she still yours but lightly modified?
Women are not property, nor are they software
That’s your take from this?
It’s a false equivilence
You need to get better at language. Let me help you with an example someone autistic can easily understand.
You’re working at a restaurant as a waiter. You’re in charge of some tables. Your coworker says to you “Your party in the back corner asked for one of the apple pies.”. Did your co-worker just say you owned people?
I put my dick in your mom, but it didn’t seem to improve your intelligence, but you’re still hers.
Aneurism much?
deleted by creator
I’m told the past tense is yote.
deleted by creator
I simply cannot get revanced to even download to my phone, and I’m not smart enough to troubleshoot it.
Try LibreTube or NewPipe
How motivated are you? Motivated enough to buy something good?
Peertube is planning on releasing an official app this year. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Where did you get that from? I haven’t found a relevant blog post.
They published a 2024 roadmap at the end of last year. I saw it when I was looking into donating to Framasoft.
Thanks.
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.
As soon as I have to see shorts, YouTube is dead to me. I hate the format with a passion.
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
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.
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.
Why would they design it to be any better if you’re still willing to pay for it?
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
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
Well, I really hope that doesn’t affect Vinegar
( Safari extension that replaces YouTube’s horrible video player with the system’s default.
It’s great, it also allows you to force Best Quality, very useful on platforms where YouTube defaults to 480p for no reason like iPadOS )
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.
This is just ads. They know that people will fight back and found a solution.
They want some to think it’s dead.
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
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
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.
That’s sad but it’s true 😢
Some of the youtube channels I watch also have channels on Peertube instances or on Odysee. Both options allow me to follow using RSS. I prefer my views to go to these platforms, so hopefully more content creators see these as viable hosts for their videos.
Peertube is also federated, so you can follow channels from your Mastodon account (and I think Lemmy too). You could also spin up your own instance if you like too.
I assume you help and financially support your instance of choice to help them with server costs? Video platforms are much more expensive to host than text platforms like mastodon or lemmy.
I haven’t yet, although I may do in future. If they were hosting my own videos I would certainly be giving them a cut of sponsor revenue though.