I mean, I dont actually mind ads… within reason. But over the past few years I have watched less and less youtube content due to the ratio of ads to the actual bloody content I wanted to view.

One recent video about a bloke’s guitar amp was great. The ads not so much. I had to view two lots of 30 second unskippable ads before the 9 minute video would start. The guy starts this amazing guitar solo half way through, only to be cut off by TWO MORE bleeding adverts. The solo continues, the guy shreds it out then the video ends… two more adverts, 30 seconds each no skips (I reloaded the browser in the end which seemed to trigger a 2 minute ad at the start of another video).

Use Piped I hear you cry. Great idea. But how long is that going to last? I am certain that youtube and their parent company are feverishly pushing their engineers to find ways through, around, over and under any tool that stops them making money. The real solution is to tell everyone we know to use other platforms as much as possible and avoid Youtube. Tell every creator we love and respect to diversify where their content goes.

I know people here dont like the politics and trolling that happen on other platforms but thats because they’re insulated. With more exposure those platforms will tackle it. Or quarantine it. The other danger is if we dont diversify our viewing and creator hosting then Alphabet will just hold a monopoly and strangle any other real chance.

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, most people don’t give a fuck. If the method of bypassing ads gets too intricate, they’ll cave.

    Seriously, the vast majority of people just let the ads run, or even watch them. They’re either unconcerned, or lazy, sometimes both.

    • ManosTheHandsOfFate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We’ve tasted ad-less video entertainment and found it good. That said, for at least half a century OTA network TV required watching ads and most people didn’t care much because they didn’t have to pay cash for the service. I think many/most people have the capacity to tolerate ads to get what they want.

      • Fondots@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        No commercials was once one of the big selling points for cable, and we know how that turned out

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Except that’s a myth and never happened. TV on all its forms had ads immediately as it appeared, because it was the same concept as radio: when you have a captive audience waiting to get the programming in order, you can insert anything you want.

          Cable promised higher quality programming, exclusive access, higher quality image etc. but never no ads. Sounds familiar?

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Their adblock blocker doesn’t work in incognito mode. The overlay and whatnot just will not populate if you use an incognito browser window. You have to sign in every time you open a new tab, but this has been working fine for me on Firefox.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s possible this could begin a regulatory shitstorm. They may realize they’re tempting fate with how hard they’re pushing for profit in bullshit, unethical, sketchy ways.

    Then again, some quant will probably walk into the room and present a business plan for regulatory capture of the EU and US and the long term profit that would yield, so they’ll definitely go that route.

  • gian @lemmy.grys.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The assumpion Google is doing is that people install AdBlockes because they want something free. They seems not to be able to understand that they simply gone too far.

    Google had the problem that they must show a ever growing revenue and since they cannot add more eyeball (or data to harvest) they simply need to try to get more from what they had. So as you say, the problem is not the single Ad, or the data harvest or any other single thing they do.
    The problem is the sum of all of the things they do. They show multiple Ads, harvest your data, make you pay and still harvest your data and show the Ads.

    People simply started to think “since Google want to screw me, then why I should not try to screw them ?”

    Use Piped I hear you cry. Great idea. But how long is that going to last? I am certain that youtube and their parent company are feverishly pushing their engineers to find ways through, around, over and under any tool that stops them making money.

    It will became the usual armed race, until Google would make their services so disfunctional to even the common user that people will simply stop using them since the value they get from the service is not worth the trouble.

    That assuming that in some places (the EU for example) Google would not be hit by some law that force them to stop what they are doing and force them to play by the rules everyone else need to follow.

  • Sparhawk87@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If YouTube ads were like the ads on Pornhub, 30 seconds long and skippable after 5 seconds, I would be OK with ads these 1min at beginning and same in the middle for a 10min video is just ridiculous.

  • missingno@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Youtube has a captive audience that isn’t going anywhere. The platform is too big to die, and too expensive for any challenger to seriously threaten it. And the only users they stand to lose with this move are the users who are costing them money, they don’t care if adblock users leave as long as they keep everyone else.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, I would be fine with it, if they slashed the price of YT premium by about 60%.

    Right now the cost of an individual YT premium membership is about 150SEK/Month, that is far too high.

    I watch a LOT of YT on my commute, and I would be fine with paying 60-70SEK/Month.

    In some regions the cost of an individual membership is the equivalent of about 20SEK/Month, so it is profitable even at those prices.

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, I would be fine with it, if they slashed the price of YT premium by about 60%.

      Here in Australia they just announced they’re about to increase prices by about 60%… new prices is equivalent to 235 SEK / month (that is for a family plan… but the family plan is the best deal - then you can at least share the cost between people).

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They really should unbundle YouTube Music or make a plan that’s for people that want nothing more than ad-free, and make that tier basically about how much they got from serving you ads.

      They’re trying too hard to sell Premium as having all of those perks and extras that not everyone wants.

  • Kayn@dormi.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think so. Netflix cracked down on password sharing and it led to an increase in subscriptions.

    Everyone here will have to make up their own mind on whether they want to continue using YouTube in this state.

  • Jamie@jamie.moe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    For as long as people have complained about YouTube ads even before they started the crackdown, I don’t think it’ll matter. Tons of people didn’t block them even before the option went away.

    Personally, I bit the bullet and got Premium last year because I didn’t feel like maintaining a DNS solution on my wifi and like using my TV for it. YouTube is basically the main form of “TV” that I watch when I’m in a couch potato mood. Most actual TV shows that come out aren’t interesting to me.

    I’m not really advocating everyone just go buy premium. Even in my case I’m not jumping up and down to give Google my money by any means. But for my situation it’s an expense that I justify for myself

    • dalë@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      YT Premium is not available in my location and, as yet, adblock still working fine.

      When they catch up with my location I’ll use either revanced or LibreTube.

  • Timwi@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    YouTube should just be government-run. No ads. Content creators can make money from sponsorships and Patreon. Which, incidentally, should also be government-run. And Twitter. These modern technologies should simply be public goods.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too international to be run by a single government and a consortium wouldn’t know who to ban. A nonprofit couldn’t really afford the infrastructure required to run it. The problem lies in how the Internet works.

      Alphabet absolutely needs it’s cloud hosting, ad servicing, video hosting and software as a service trust busted though. Same with Amazon’s cloud, twitch, video, physical distribution, and marketplace.

    • catboss@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your comment is the most interesting one in this whole thread, in a positive way.