google has “fuck you” amounts of money, the minority of users using firefox mean nothing to them.
If google was having problems funding youtube, believe me, they’d stop paying creators before that would happen, and then the creators would tell us about it.
Do you really think they would stop paying creators before stopping people from bypassing the way both them and creators make money? It doesn’t take a business major to see that running a free service without ads is only going to cost them money.
I think (unsure) you misunderstand. Google, and any other company’s, main goal is to make money. To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
If google can’t adequately monetize their services (by losing the ad-blocking war), they can’t monetize the creators. Google is evil, but so is the economic system that causes inconvenience to be the most effective way to monetize content.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.
The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren’t the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.
This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.
That’s great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can’t just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.
“…why would they punish their product over the users costing them money?”
That’s if Google loses the ad-blocking war, hence the second paragraph, unless they manage to stuff web environment integrity/similar into their website, or if front ends like Invidious become more popular.
“…YouTube still has bills to pay…”
That’s true, but I think Google makes enough money from other things (tracking, other website’s ads) that it wouldn’t hurt them too bad. I think the recent crackdown on ad blocking is less from a large profit drop and rather to send a message to avoid the former from happening. Again though, I could be wrong about that one.
In the end though, I just want to watch and directly support my creators without being forced to waste 15 seconds of my life that I will never get back on a product I never have and never will use.
By making Youtube Premium worth it, both for users and creators. Make it transparent what % of the YP fee is actually going to creators, make that % actually fair, give extra features to YP users, incentivize creators to ask their viewers to collaborate with it if they actually can afford to. Youtube has reached a point where it has become a public utility, to the point that tens of millions of people use it to supplement their education or stay updated on the news. A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
Of course, this idea rooted in civil values is incompatible with an economic actor that sees both creators and consumers as cattle that must be milked as efficiently as possible.
A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.
If not ads then what is the free option supposed to look like. I hate ads also, but it’s not like it’s sustainable to run free without ads.
Wikipedia has no ads yet it has a pretty large amount of spare money, and there are plenty of other free to use platforms and projects. Youtube is not Wikipedia, sure, but Wikipedia has no reason to offer Youtube Premium.
Are creators making enough money to get by on PeerTube? The idea is interesting, but I don’t see people making enough to do it full time, and I don’t see how the streaming quality can be anything as good or reliable compared to something like YouTube by relying on P2P.
Also, hasn’t youtube been wildly profitable for years? Profit, by definition is excess. It’s what’s left over after all business expense have been paid.
If youtube is profitable, why do they need more profit? Oh yeah, they don’t.
Why do you think you can’t upload more than a few megabytes of content to Lemmy? Serving video is expensive as hell, especially if you’re transcoding it into other resolutions.
As far as I know YouTube is not that profitable, but it’s hard to tell as they don’t release all the numbers.
Do you make any excess money? Do you have any money left over after rent, food, etc? If you do, do you need that money? If you don’t would you like to make more? Nobody wants to live with no excess money, so why should a business?
Woah dude, you’re getting right into my point of projection.
Just because you want to use your excess to get even more excess, you’re assuming that everyone else will. Why eschew luxurious so those who have less can have more? You’d never project that lol, cause that’s not how you feel.
Have a good day, man. Hope I enlightened you a bit.
Gonna block you now cause I feel you have nothing to offer me. See ya.
So you want to live just making ends meet? Don’t care about having a savings account? You would be happy with just enough to get by without any excess? I don’t know anybody who would be happy with that.
If you want to run away from the conversation then go ahead. If you do happen to have some money you don’t want though, since who needs to make more than what they need just to break even even, right? I’ll happily take it off your hands.
Thing is, even with all their efforts they still can’t make it profitable. Not sure if they release the data (doubt). But, YouTube has always been barely profitable or operating on loss. Google bought yt over 15 years ago and haven’t figured out how to make money off it and arguably made it worse with their policies and algos.
Part of the problem might be all those people blocking the ads, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a pretty big chunk of their viewers. No ads means no ad revenue, which means losing money.
As if video streaming will die with one site. One for-profit site, that’s not remotely turning a profit. A vestigial organ of an advertising giant, burning money to build dependency and exploit it for control.
BitTorrent used to share more video than Netflix - despite a lack of money, despite a lack of ads, and despite being illegal. Content creators will be fine without this corporate facade.
I don’t know what YouTube’s market share is, but for videos that are not short TikTok style it’s probably like 95%? And they are also in the TikTok short and twitch streaming areas now, so I think it would be a massive blow to video streaming if they went away.
BitTorrent just moves all the costs to the users, and users are typically not wanting to run their own video servers. They might work for tech people who don’t mind running servers or already have a server they are running, but you have to think about the regular user that is probably 80% or more of the market. You can’t expect to get big off relying on users to be the servers.
BitTorrent may have been big as in number of files, but as far as users and having content on demand it never got there. I remember waiting for days to get a single movie, not because my Internet was slow, but because the peers were slow.
When it comes to a YouTube replacement I don’t think you are going to get big relying on users to be the servers. Nevermind the fact that the nature of how BitTorrent works means no company will allow their content on it legally.
And nothing’s changed in all those years. Yeah? P2P technology couldn’t get any better than 2004. The fact it was slow sometimes means we’re boned forever.
Corporations already have streaming. I don’t care if they come along. Their content might be there whether they like it or not.
Consider where we’re having this conversation: is big even desirable? Has the dominance of one video platform been good for the internet? I’d say plainly fucking not, if killing ad blockers is even a feasible outcome. When YouTube was its own company there were a dozen competitors of similar size and quality. Google pouring money into one, so it could swallow everything and censor everyone and shove people toward right-wing propaganda, is not exactly ideal.
Has P2P changed much? I don’t think it has really. I use private sites for that stuff now and it’s great there, but the public stuff still seems pretty bad IMO.
Well if they don’t want their content there, then you have the whole problem if it being illegal. Now you have to convince people to break the law, and go as far as to install a VPN or whatever so your ISP doesn’t send you warnings. This isn’t a great start for something to replace YouTube.
I think Big is required for a P2P YouTube style thing to work. You need lots of peers to stream content in decent quality. You need people to knowingly break laws and use VPNs. You need people to run their own media servers, you are asking a lot from people, all YouTube is asking you to do is watch some ads or buy premium.
Oh no! Is the company that makes 70b per quarter and is buying back 70b of shares to keep making more in trouble of only making 80b per quarter next year and not 100b? Poor babies.
Maybe instead of looking at revenue you should look at profit. Revenue means nothing if your running costs eat it all up.
Also, maybe try to look at YouTube Numbers instead of the whole parent company? The patient company being profitable isn’t an excuse for the child company to lose money.
Yes! No.1 reason: microphone quality! I have to attend many calls every day and no Bluetooth headset (BT v.4 > 5.3, SPS, AAC, LDAC) has even come close to the simple quality of a ~25,-€ wired headset.
I followed this from Ublock's Reddit page, it's working for now.
Current anti-adblock status: Latest fixed (ID: 462a8d5d)*
Please, remember these 3 steps:
Force update all your filter lists (click uBO icon > ⚙ Dashboard button > Filter lists pane > 🕘 Purge all caches > 🔃 Update now)
Turn off all other extensions AND browser's built-in blockers
Remove all your current custom filters AND custom filter lists that you have enabled / added manually (Adguard lists...)
It might be quicker to make a backup of your config and restore to defaults before proceeding to step 1.
Fixing anti-adblock can cause ads slipped. If you see any ads slipped, please report back the EXACT URL and your country when accessing the URL so volunteers are able to investigate.
The filter lists can be updated multiple times a day, so please always do step 1 before reporting.
About the ID above, it's the ID of YouTube's script that's used for anti-adblock, you can monitor it via this link: https://pastefy.app/G1Txv5su/raw (top to bottom is oldest to latest). It means that the current fix is matched with the script with corresponding ID.
If the latest ID (the last line) does not match the current one written above, it means YT has updated the new one and it might cause anti-adblock again. If it matches and you still get anti-adblock, kindly check the 3 steps above. Thank you.
As a Sync user myself, why should I switch? I’ve been using Sync for years on Reddit, I love the interface, and I don’t mind if the dev makes a bit of money from it with the occasional and minimally intrusive ads or paid ad removal.
Sync was my choice back in the reddit days, I paid for the ad-free experience, and have even had the team personally help me out when ads reappeared after one update.
But if there’s something I disagree with, I just have to deal with it from the developers. On Jerboa, I’m freely allowed to take the entire app and distribute it on my own, even charge for it, with no consequence. That freedom allows for a lot of customization with few workarounds. And I support that potential.
I spend like 20x time on YouTube compared to other premium streaming services, knowing the money at least partially goes to the creators and that it’s usually a much larger source of revenue than the midroll ads (and the fact I spend like 40% of my watch time on an iPad) makes it pretty worth it to me. Other than that I use uBlock on medium/high, but if there was an extention that could skip the sponsor segments inside the videos themselves I’d use it in a heartbeat.
It’s a no-brainer. You get a music service at the same price as everyone else. They just add on ad-free YouTube. I don’t get why so many people hate the idea of it.
I've had Google Play Music (and YouTube Premium as a freebie) since it launched at $7.99 per month. Folks like me who were grandfathered in at that price just got an increase to $13.99, which forced me to cancel. I can't afford restaurants or takeout anymore with inflation as bad as it is, and I guess I can't afford YouTube either.
if there was an extention that could skip the sponsor segments inside the videos themselves I’d use it in a heartbeat.
sponsorblock does that. it's crowd sourced, so it doesn't always work with the small channel newest videos, but it's very good at what it does considering.
It’s quite amazing how well sponsorblock works really. I spend a shit ton of time on youtube and I almost never have to mark those sections of the video myself because someone else did it already.
someone previously marked all breaks inbetween numbers in this 3h video as intermissions. though now I see they’ve been removed and there’s merely one highlight in there
I use my headphone jack everyday, I’m way more obsessed with music and audio than I am about photography. My phone camera is for taking pictures of my dog looking goofy 95% of the time, I don’t need multiple 4K cameras with pro grade lenses for that.
This is becoming a real concern for me even though I have no plans to replace my current phone, I already got slim pickings in the current market and doubt the trends gonna change anytime soon.
Yup. My phone is absolutely fucked (demoshlied screen lol) but I always have a podcast going and my car doesn’t have aux. And my car isn’t getting replaced before I go full electric, which is at least 3-5 years away.
strawpoll.com
Top