YouTube is increasing Premium prices in multiple countries, right after an ad-blocker crackdown | You either pay rightfully for the video content you consume, or you live with the ads.::Google is increasing the prices of YouTube Premium and YouTube Music Premium subscriptions in some regions, right after blocking ad-blockers.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They seem to be increasing in frequency. If this is only the second one you’ve seen in the last 24h then you’re lucky.

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have a question for people using sponsorblock. Why? How do you expect a content creator to pay the bills? I use an adblock because fuck Google but content creators pick up sponsorships specifically because YT pays like shit.

        • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m only speaking for myself here, and I’m certain you’re not going to like the answer I have to offer. That’s not my problem. I don’t like being advertised to. I don’t like others telling me what I’ll like or what to do. I’m a monster, I know, I also take pee breaks when commercials come on tv as well and I usually arrive late to movies so I can skip the previews.

          Seriously though, I really don’t care how they pay their bills, they’re a dancing monkey on the sidewalk that I enjoy for a couple minutes and move on. If they can’t afford to keep making content and quit, I’ll just move onto the next channel that’s still producing. It’ll never run out, just like there’s always going to be someone who sits through the ads or actually buys whatever their shilling. At the end of the day, it’s their responsibility to make sure their shits handled, not mine. If they can’t pay their bills, they should probably do something that offers a more steady income stream.im not obligated to give them my time in exchange for them getting money. They get my time in exchange for me being entertained, that’s it. Maybe if they made content for enjoyment instead of money, they’d make better content.

          Before we get to name calling, I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either

          • CalcProgrammer1@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            10000% this. I don’t give a shit how you make money. YouTube started out as a place to let people show off to the world. It was wholesome. It was a community. Then they started paying people for views and it got perverted into this capitalist hellscape we have now where the most popular channels are garbage spewed out by content farms that exist to game an algorithm. Where the highest earners can commit literal crimes and get a slap on the wrist because Google wants the ad revenue their views bring in. This is not a community of the “you” the end users who just want to share interesting hobbies and funny clips with the world. Put the “you” back in YouTube.

            • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Exactly!! I’ve been on the Internet for a long time. I remember the pre-youtube days. Way back when the Internet wasn’t exactly profitable. That meant that the content you found was genuinely made just to share something. I remember the early days of YouTube where people were just making cool shit. A good example, and I understand people have opinions that differ, would be RoosterTeeth. Started as just friends making funny shit, and they did separate shit for money to support making the fun stuff. Now, they’re a very different company owned by a mega corporation. They exist to produce favorable content and farm views. With the way that shit goes viral nowadays, there isn’t really a chance for small communities to exist before whatever space it is eventually explodes. I’m not saying small communities don’t exist, but there’s a big difference between what was and what’s become. Everything’s so much more commercial and purely for the intent of clout or money. People are actively trying to meet KPIs to satisfy arbitrary algorithms. Just go back to making entertaining captivating content.

          • satan@r.nf
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I am fully aware that this is a shit take, but it’s the truth. I’m a cynic and I’m not very fun at parties either

            I love basement dwellers. Moms cooking, pops paying the internet bills and he thinks he’s not going to see ads with his hands on cheetos, watching Netflix and ordering on food delivery app he subliminally remembers. But they were totally not from the ads.

            • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s an awful lot of assumptions and insults coming through to someone who’s just answering the question honestly. I’m not naive enough to think I’m advertisement proof, I just get tired of them and avoid them where I can. I’m failing to see what your point is

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

                Just because you’re honest doesn’t mean you get a cookie. Your take a isn’t just shit, you’re a fucking thief stealing from mostly ordinary people who are trying to find new ways to make money because the traditional economy fails us. You can take your whining and go fuck yourself as far as I’m concerned. If you don’t want to watch sponsorships that help people make more money then turn the fucking content off. Entitled twat.

                So many gigantic hypocrites on this site. Any time success for workers requires even a tiny amount of time all you hypocrites on this site suddenly turn into penny pinching fuckwads. bunch of fake leftist tools. It wasn’t enough for you to block ads so now you’re also blocking sponsorships, so that tells me you think you’re entitled to free work from others which makes you no different from some corporate capitalist shithead.

                • Beefy-Tootz@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I don’t think thief is the right word. Would you consider someone who stands by a busker listening to their whatever and not throwing a coin in the hat, a thief as well? I get your point, I just think you went about it the wrong way. Who has the better claim to entitlement, the person who already got paid for the sponsorship based on their existing performance metrics, or me and my time? Are you a thief for taking a piss during a commercial break? Are you a thief for arriving late to movies to intentionally skip the previews? Where’s the line here? I’m also not sure of where my hypocrisy comes in either. I have no fantasies about other people wanting to hear what I have to say, especially if it’s going to cost them time or money. I’m not blocking advertisements and expecting people to watch mine. I don’t have anything to advertise. If I wanted to make a shitty YouTube video to entertain people, I’ll do that, but I’m not going to pretend that it’s going to put food on my table. My real job does that. I’m not so vain as to think I deserve other people’s time and attention. What makes Linus tech tips entitled to my time, or Mr beast, or whoever else is churning out mediocre content purely for profit?

        • BarrelAgedBoredom@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re already getting paid for putting it in their video. Sometimes the sponsorships are on a “per signups” basis and I have never once come across a YouTube sponsorship for something that I would actually have a use for. They’re either already getting paid or they weren’t getting my money anyway so I might as well skip it. I don’t need to hear a pitch for something I don’t want/need

        • Anemia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t care who’s serving the ads, I don’t want to watch ads period. I will pay for the content where possible though. I dont think youtube taking 45% considering the crazy infrastructure provided is that strange. Maybe 45% is still too much, but i don’t think 55% sounds like “shit”.

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

            I forgot that the people I watch are far less mainstream. They survive on Patreon and sponsorships because they’re constantly demonetized, thus my perception it pays shit.

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

              That’s fair enough. Didn’t think of that angle which is a pretty relevant one considering how easy it seems to be to get demonetized.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Counter-ask: how does watching the sponsored content help them?

          They’ve been paid initially, people who use sponsor block are way less likely to sign up for the service.

          Watching it does literally nothing for them if you don’t sign up… The sponsor won’t even see metrics of who skipped the sponsored portion

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It just seems like overkill to me tbh. The content creators I watch need sponsors to get by, so I’ll take a peek at what they’re offering in good faith. If I don’t like it I just skip to the end of the bit, or leave the video since a few put them at the end. You’re not messing with corporate profits or anything.

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, but you can set it up to not auto skip. You could just get a button to skip to the end of the promotion - I think that’s the default even

              But I’ve literally only looked into a product sponsored by a creator once, and once I saw the price tag I clicked off. And that was after I installed sponsor block

        • TDCN@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Most ads are for products in another country so even if I hypothetically wanted it I can’t get it so why waste my time on it. And if they are multinational companies I usually don’t want anything to do with it. I also just don’t want to be advertised to. It’s wasting my time because 99.99% of the time it’s irrelevant to me.

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

            This didn’t help me, I understand advertising. My questioning sponsorblock apparently didn’t properly convey that a huge part of my confusion is that you can just… Skip that part. It’s not like rolled ads and even then I already mentioned support for adblocker.

            Like it’s overkill, obsessive type feel to me “I hate advertising so much I want everything to be automatic so I don’t even process for a 10th of a second that I may have consumed an ad” while most people are like “Oh it’s the sponsor” click click and move on. And hey maybe I see a it’s a product I DO use like Displate, so the discount code is useful.

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

              Is the question “why automate when you can manually do it?” I think that’s where the confusion may lie. Why wouldn’t you automate it if you were going to do it anyway?

        • Gladaed@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          YT does not pay like shit. A lot of the time sponsorships are much more targeted and interesting than YouTube ads.

          That being said I mainly dislike bad ads. Good, well targeted ads that don’t destroy your eardrums for products that interest me seem nice. But they don’t tend to exist.

  • dack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why Google has been using their browser monopoly to push their “Web Integrity API”. If that gets adopted, they can fully control the client side and prevent all ad blocking.

    • Jolteon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thankfully, Firefox is still a thing. If that comes out, it’s going to be a hell of a lot more popular.

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        … and dependent on Google ; they may either push that API into FF or push something different so bad that FF would lose even more users.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Google also said they would cancel there plan to roll out FLoC after significant pushback a while ago, only to renamed it as Ad Topics and roll them out anyway when no one is looking. If Google do the same with web integrity API, I wouldn’t be surprised anymore.

        • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be fair, FLoC had signifient issues and could be used to fingerprint users. Google’s whole point of FLoC was to get rid of third party cookies, to stop sites from fingerprinting users and tracking them throughout the web, so FLoC didn’t really solve the problem in that regard. With Ad Topics, only a limited subset of topics are presented to the advertisers, and fake data is injected, making that fingerprinting less likely.

  • Mac@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Aww. Are the greedy megacorporations upset that consumers are being greedy in return? Poor megacorporations. :c

  • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Kinda glad my uBlock Origin is still working.

    This should be illegal, actually in Europe it’s about to be…

    • sergih@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      what is illegal? Havinadblockcks, cracking down onadblocks or upping the price on the software after ““forcing”” people to move to it.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        ·
        1 year ago

        Enshittification, also called chokepoint capitalism, is a term coined by Corey Doctorow (sp?) that lays out a common pattern with platforms in a capitalist system where:

        1. Platform builds a product to entice users to it for little to no cost to the user (Google search, Facebook, Amazon shopping, etc)
        2. Once users are locked in, make the experience worse in ways that increase profits for business partners (Google ads partners, etc)
        3. Once business partners are locked in, screw them over to rake back as many profits for the platform owner.
  • daniskarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    If some day I cannot block ads on YouTube I’ll go to Patreon or any other platform that gives creators a real share of what I’m paying. Google will not see my money.

    • Tire@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Has YouTube even done anything to improve the platform in the last 8 year? The only thing that I’ve seen change is the search turning to trash with “recommended content” after 4 real search results.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And they did it in a way so half-ass that if you have the right plug in the dislike button is back. I think the most pathetic is when I see that the dislike button is turned off by the owner of the video.

          I understand why they did it, they were tired of major corporations having PR nightmares when trailers for unpopular products get downloaded into Oblivion, but protecting shareholders of other companies should not be their job. Their priority should be to content creators, sadly however this is how ethics works, not capitalism.

          But, being able to turn off the dislike button all together…

          Imagine every other job getting to do that, I am a janitor, imagine if one day I was allowed to have people just not be able to look at the dirt on whatever floor I didn’t mop. I would basically never mop again.

          I understand that YouTube is a hobby for most, at least it was in the beginning, but it is now a business. And if I were the Better Business Bureau I would give them a big fat F on their report card

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            To be clear, the plugin doesn’t make the button come back, the button never went away. The dislike counter went away, and the plugin doesn’t “bring it back” it simply approximates the number of dislikes (unless the channel operator opts in to having the info shared directly from their API, which comes with some security risks.)

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No.

        In fact they’ve made it objectively worse by restricting what you’re allowed to make videos about.

        The state of True Crime is abysmal… it has gotten to the point where censorship is stricter than Cable TV, as the names of various felonies have to be bleeped out in order to not catch youtube’s wrath.

        Yet Far Right Political Channels are free to drop whatever slurs against transfolk they like… and openly accuse whatever drag performer they want of being a kiddie diddler even though true crime channels get a content strike for saying “pedophile” even though it’s in the context of someone literally tried and convicted as one.

        Ever wonder why the kids are saying “Unalive” so much? It started as a cute 4th wall leaning cover for death in a Deadpool/Spider-Man crossover…

        Now it has regular usage because direct references to death (Again, Regardless of context) is against Youtube Terms of Service.

        It’s so bad that a close friend of mine who is a streamer, despite not posting to youtube, has had to train himself to exclusively say Unalived so that clips of his streams can be safely posted to youtube, his livelihood cannot risk him using the “d” or “k” words.

        It’s absurd because a reason web content became so popular is that it wasn’t restricted to the same kind of censorship the FCC puts on Cable TV… We can have an Angry Nerd drop as many F Bombs as he wants while talking about something as innocuous as Super Mario 3…

        But thanks to Youtube… not anymore

        • 𝕃𝕒𝕞𝕓@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was recommended a gaming video on Starfield where the youtuber in the first few seconds of the video shows a male character speaking of his husband, says out loud the character is gay and then murders said character. I reported it and YouTube didn’t do shit. I won’t pay them or watch their ads. May Google rot.

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

            They want to look like they’re against bigotry, but don’t actually wanna be…

            Shit just watch SML, it gets censored by Youtube all the time for incredibly minor shit (Like a parody of Momo, or showing blood), but the blatant transphobia and racism? Perfectly fine… I mean it’s comedy and nothing’s meant by it (Unlike the Starfield video)

            God, now I’m remembering all the people who used Kung Jin as a Fatality Dummy in MKX, which became a trend when the writer revealed Kung Jin was gay… (The game said he had a “forbidden romance”, but he’s a monk, so that could have easily been a woman since monk’s are celibate, which is why a writer had to clarify)

            What really sucks is all the “fans” whining that this was shoving Kung Jin’s sexuality in the face of the fans…

            This is the same game where Shinnok, the MK Devil, is threatening to end all existence, and right when his right hand man Quan Chi is in custody so that he can potentially bring the cast of the previous game back to life… but wait, can’t talk about that now, because Johnny Cage and Sonya Blade have to bring the whole game to a halt to scream at each other about their failed marriage…

            But it’s KUNG JIN’s sexuality that fucks up the game right? Strangely it’s never the straight people bringing the show to a halt to talk about how “Penis will touch vagina in a big and exciting way” who get accused of “Shoving their sexuality in people’s faces”, even though that shit happens all the time.

            Look Hollywood, your action movies don’t need a forced romance, especially if it’s a woman who will be competent in the first fucking scene and be a dumbass every other scene.

            Not really a problem MK has (Female Representation is in a pretty good place), but a beef I had in general.

      • Evotech@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Probably a lot on the backend. Honestly fewer changes on the front is probably for the better at this point.

    • AliceTheMinotaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Only issue would be getting the creators to move. That nay be more difficult than said with some. I already follow some on rumble, I only stay on YouTube as others haven’t.

      Otherwise I agree

    • cbarrick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I was under the impression that YT Premium paid creators the same per view as YT with ads. Is this not the case?

      • Stephen304@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe Louis Rossmann said that giving a single dollar directly to a creator is more than a lifetime of watching their ads. Premium I think is really good comparatively but that’s only because ads pay so little.

        (https://youtu.be/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?t=55 is where he says this according to his cpm)

      • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Some creators have said that the cut they get from premium viewers is higher than that of ad based (SpiffingBrit for example, in his YouTube download exploit video).

        If that still holds true is unknown.

        • Raxiel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Linus (LTT) also said that one premium view was worth significantly more than ad based.

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

        I don’t believe so. As I understand it, all Premium money goes into a big bucket. Then, views/watchtime/etc. are used to calculate what percentage of the pie a given creator will receive.

  • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, no… it’s already overpriced.

    Paramount + £6.99 Netflix £10.99 (standard) Youtube £12

    Makes no sense… they don’t have anything like the production overheads. Stuff like Star Trek and Stranger Things are expensive. ‘10 greatest cat videos’ is not.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Heck, they don’t even pay a good fraction of their bandwidth because they put caching box in your ISP location to reduce loads. This is a huge privilege as ISPs won’t let any random companies run equipments for free in their network, which is one of a huge barrier for any YouTube competitors.

      • LufyCZ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They might be allowing them to run the boxes for free, but the ISPs are saving money on bandwidth, too.

        Get enough users for the ISP to care and they’ll work with you. Otherwise, you probably don’t have all that many users to begin with, so the overhead that maintaining and distributing these boxes would create wouldn’t be worth it anyway.

    • nnjethro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Youtube expenses is revenue share with creators and hosting untold hours of video, over 500 hours uploaded per minute, that others just don’t have to deal with.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It “makes sense” in that, unlike those two, YT has to deal with thousands of hours of video being uploaded to their servers every minute. What they don’t pay in streaming rights, they pay in storage and bandwidth costs, plus a couple of peanuts for “moderation”, which is probably more expensive in the long run

    • TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on how much you use it. I watch Youtube pretty much every day for at least an hour, while using Netflix or other streaming services about once evey few months. I use Spotify every day too, just because I like their app more in some ways.

      • Atomdude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If I had to choose, I’d swap my Netflix and Disney+ subscriptions for YouTube. I think I watch YouTube videos about three times as much as Netflix and Disney.

    • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well it also includes a streaming music service which are normally $10/m on their own.

      • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I already pay for Spotify. They knew exactly what they were doing when they lumped that shit in YouTube premium

        • kirk781@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          IIRC, YouTube Music is also offered as a standalone service, Atleast in some countries. However, the difference b/w YouTube Premium and just the Music service comes out to be miniscule, so folks just pay for the former.

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

            No, I want Premium without Music. It’s not offered anywhere.

            Same thing with Amazon. I want Prime without Prime Video. It’s not offered either.

            • kirk781@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh, I understand now, especially the second one. The only thing from Amazon’s product line worth using to me is the Prime delivery service. I can’t give two hoots about their Prime Music( which I lost respect for after it denied to run for me on any browser on Linux for some reason) or Prime Video.

      • tony@lemmy.hoyle.me.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can’t see the value in using youtube for music… it’s not like I can watch music videos in my car. That’s worth $0 to me, and I imagine the majority. Spotify is better… or apple music if you’re on the fruit side.

        • ChronosWing@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Youtube music doesn’t have music videos, not sure what you are talking about. It’s just a clone of play music after they shut it down.

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

          If you’ve already got a solution for ad-free music in your car, sure, obviously. Not everybody has that though.

  • Quik@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Or you update your uBlock Origin blocklists and declare YouTube the war.

    • zerofk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I never see Vivaldi mentioned in these. Yes, it’s chromium based, but I have not seen a single YouTube ad since they implemented built-in ad block many years ago. Without the need for extensions, plug-ins, or user managed block lists.

      • Craton@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        yeah, ive been using vivaldi and only very recently did i see my player diabled with ubo off but if i disable ubo and put vivaldi’s blocking option to just block trackers, that does the trick tho the ad starts with a black screen but the skip button instantly appears under .5 seconds or the video starts

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unpopular opinion: this is a good thing.

    (Waits for down votes… )

    This is healthy for the ecosystem, it makes it possible for other video platforms to compete, and be sustainable. Google providing the loss leader in video streaming makes it difficult for other platforms to exist, and sustain themselves, because they don’t have Google’s war chest.

    So it’s going to be a difficult transition, but now there is wiggle room for other platforms to exist. And with 1 gigabit, and 10 gigabit home internet connections becoming more common globally, we have options for more interesting gorilla distributed video streaming.

    • CurlyMoustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Will the gorillas go door to door with a pad or something with a video on it, or are you thinking memory sticks?

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

        Both services are available, and I recommend paying the extra for the ‘please dont rip my arms off’ extra.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        More like IPFS. If you have a bunch of gigabit residential internet connections distributed globally. That’s a reasonable approximation of a video streaming platform.

        I’m not saying I have a good solution for today, but all the components are there to build a competitor to YouTube, and now if the price barrier going up, there’s room for whatever organization competes with YouTube to get some sustainable income

    • thechadwick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re right I hope. Especially about gorillas sharing video! We need a guerilla movement to get these gorillas some cell phones and I’ve been saying it for years!

    • BURN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Significant portions of the US are still on copper cable or DSL, I don’t think there’ll be widespread fiber, let alone 10G for at least 10-15 years

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

        Agreed, I’m in northern Canada and only the capital city of my territory has cable internet, the outskirts of the city and the smaller communities are stuck with ancient and capped (300GB per month) DSL at 15 Mbps while I get unlimited 100/10 Mbps for $140 per month. I’d kill for symmetrical 100/100 so I could access my plex server outside of my house, let alone 1 Gbps fiber internet.

        I’d guess we’re a minimum of 5-10 years away from fiber internet sadly, we just don’t have the population to make it profitable enough for the greedy ass telecom companies, even with the extra government funding the telecom gets for serving our low population territory.

      • Kazumara@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        64.75 Swiss Franks per month from my ISP, it’s the same price as their 1 Gb/s and 25 Gb/s plans.

        I’m currently still on 1Gb/s because buying the faster router, switch and network cards to make use of more is kind of expensive

        • Sparrow_1029@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wow that’s nice! I get 600/25mbps for $80USD in the US, coax 😞 wish fiber-to-the-premise was a possibility in my neighborhood

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even that’s twice what I get. The prices here are disgusting… I get 300mbps for $100… Yay monopolies!

            • BURN@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              My parents get 25/1 for ~$150 since there’s no other options, nor is there any plans to run new cable to get them better internet.

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is what I’ve been saying, youtube providing the service for free is what’s been preventing competitors to exist.

    • h0usewaifu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a really good point, I never thought about this. While we still haven’t seen the anti-adblock message from YT (Firefox + uBlock Origin on Linux Mint), we’ve been using Nebula more and more lately. It would be great if there was a similar service for quality kids content. As it stands we stick to just a couple YT channels for our 2.5 year old because of how much absolute, irredeemable garbage there is targeted at kids there. I can’t imagine how shit the ads are for them.

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

        I have no idea what the content is like on YouTube Kids but on my YouTube app when I cast kids stuff the display ads on the phone side are often for mobile games with really creepy shit like dead Paw Patrol characters and grieving Elsa.

        I’d never leave a little one attended with an iPad with YouTube on their own

  • zingo@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The way Google is starting to abuse its position of power to crackdown on its users, its really comes to show the cracks in its armour.

    It’s the beginning of the end for Google.

    Long live open source software!

    • cjsolx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Google isn’t going anywhere. We are the minority. People who know what “open source” even means are the minority. The vast majority of people will just put up with it because they don’t know any better. You are highly highly overestimating the tech literacy (and motivation level) of the average person.

      • zingo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, more crazy things has happened. Do you think that Google is going to be here forever?

        It’s the little things that corrodes a company. Hence the "crack in the armour.

        I like to think that most people surf the Internet with an ad blocker. Simple because the Internet is just riddled with ads and the experience is frustrating without one.

        So if you see your grandma has a bad experience online, you are likely to install an ad blocker to help her out. Most people knows how to do this, at least one person in the family. That is what hurts Google the most.

        It’s the annoyance factor that is a great driver of change. The way people do things. Even if they are used to do things in a certain way.

        I personally have notest the Google maps are much more inaccurate nowadays than it used to be. It has become an annoyance.

        • cjsolx@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Google is a trillion dollar company. It’s not Digg. Google going down would be the single most sensational thing to have happened in the history of the Internet. Even Twitter is still kicking after everything they’ve done.

    • Debs@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If we are going to do this capitalist market thing than we need competition.

  • Punkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The stupid thing is that they could have approached this in a much less dickish manner. Seriously. First, they are making money off us as it is with their demographics and the fact they are not utilizing this cash cow as before means they have gotten too greedy for their own good, or mismanaging funds which is a completely unrelated problem. Long ads, unskippable ads, expensive premium. This is the beginning of the end of something they used to offer as free, resting on their laurels as a monopoly, like the airline industry. When they are now practically forcing the cobra effect. Eventually, it will get so silly, it will go the way of the dod like Angelfire. AOL, and Geocities. Or, soon, Netflix.

    I would have started it similar to Patreon, like, “by donating $1/mo, you can support artists like this,” and incentivize the publishers with monetary gain and higher search results. Nobody is gonna miss $1 or $12/year. You multiply that by millions of viewers, that’s millions of dollars on top of their demographics. Second, they could have had a 5 second bumper, similar to PBS, like “This and other find content is brought to you by Exxon and the Chubb group” or whatever. Five seconds. Front and back. Not enough to cause outrage. Skippable, but not so annoying, everyone skips.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      God imagine SML allowing Jeffy to ask if Mario is “fucking high” again?

      Pretty hyped for the death of Youtube.

  • set_secret@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    mine went from 17 AUD to 33 AUD.

    what a bunch of greedy assholes.

    I was paying for it for years. But now I’ll go out of my way to not pay for it. No doubt a lot of people will too.

    • pandacoder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      TF? (aka fuck’em) That seems like the USD price is probably going to rise too then. USD 9.99 right now for me and that’s AUD 15.41.

      AUD 33 would be more than doubling it for me, just like Disney more than doubled my barely used subscription (I instantly cancelled that).

      One Piece is going to have real live action now methinks.

    • N1NJ4W4RR10R_@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not certain what is up with yours, but mine has been increased to $17 from $15 AU.

      *Ah, the Family plan.

      $18 > $32. An absurd increase especially given the single plan was just $2.