I don’t care what it costs to run YouTube. All I hear from the creators is “Support us on Patreon because YouTube doesn’t pay” and they sure ain’t asking us to buy YouTube premium.
I have literally seen 2 creators ever bring up youtube red, saying that yes subscribers do make up a more significant percentage of their revenue and did help a little bit when videos got demonetized. Every creator is saying some sort of the “I don’t want all my eggs in one basket, I can’t trust these platforms” argument.
Honestly, I agree with you with that. YouTube pays creators a lot, technically we shouldn’t be removed about the presence ads, because it’s how they stay afloat, that’s just how it works. My main issue is the sheer amount of them nowadays. I used to gladly watch the ads, but it went from one or two before and after each video, to heaps of midrolls every couple minutes. It’s not the ads that annoy me, it’s the amount of them, which is the reason I use an ad blocker (which tbh applies to most of the Internet nowadays)
Even if YT gave all the money to the creators, ads are so cheap nowadays that it would need them approx 20.000 ad views just to pay a month of premium (and that’s assuming every cent goes to them) big creators and publishers sure make money out of ads, in the end they get millions of views. But a smaller creator thst works hours upon hours on a video is making probs less than minimum wage through ads. Ergo If they want to make money they need to rely on generous people.
Well the creators I like don’t see it as a good relationship. They keep leaving for Twitch, Patreon, Nebula, or quitting on content creation. If I’m a fan of them, I need to listen to their concerns about how YouTube is constantly threatening their livelihood.
I haven’t used YouTube logged in since they force merged YouTube accounts with Google accounts. This make me a bit harder to track and my data slightly less valuable. I don’t like that my data will still being used to create an advertising profile even if I pay. If one of the features of YouTube premium was they would never sell any of my data across all Google services then I would be willing to pay for it.
The bully part comes in when YouTube music is rolled into the cost. I would pay for youtube premium if all I got was a premium YouTube (and therefore the price was substantially lower). But what they’re doing is leveraging the popularity of YouTube to try and force the bolstering of YouTube music subscribers. Furthermore, they are currently increasing the price for premium in several markets. So the already too high cost is temporary at best and nearly guaranteed to go up even further with absolutely no increase in benefits. Paying to remove ads seems fine, but what they are attempting to do goes beyond that simple quid pro quo. They are being coercive and indirect to a degree I find unethical. Thus, bully.
Google ran Youtube at a loss for years to draw everyone in and now that there’s no real competition (yet), are tightening the screws. Very similar to how Walmart will sell stuff at a loss to bankrupt locally owned stores and then raise their prices.
Exploitive megacorporation can pound sand. It wasn’t a bad experience back when it was a single short ad before every video. Now I’ve had a wonderful ad free experience for years because of ad blockers. Why would I downgrade the experience and pay for it?
Google is attempting to remove the freedom of viewing HTML the way I want to view it from my own devices. While they’re free to run their website the way they want to, the principle of attempting to remove your freedom of choice is not only a bad look, but violating.
These two things are different, and one does not negate the validity of the other.
I am sorry but that argument simply doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me. Unless I am missing a facet, you are saying that your autonomy outstrips their rights? If we were to make an analogue version of that argument would your autonomy to use your hands how you see fit, allow for you to walk into a shop and take something without paying? It seems like, unless I’ve missed something, that’s the analogy.
Commerce and indeed society has always been a balance of personal autonomy and rules, with YouTube you’re going to a website and circumventing their chosen rules. I might not agree with YouTube’s methods, but I don’t think I can get behind the argument they are impinging on your technical rights any more than Tesco does if you try to half-inch a chocolate bar.
For my first point, paying, let’s say you subscribe to a newspaper. You pay a monthly fee, and the newspaper comes to your house. Nothing special.
For the second point, let’s say you have a free, ad-supported magazine. Once you obtain the magazine, how you read it and what you do with it is up to you. If you want to go as far as to cut the ads out before you read it, you can do that. And you should be able to do that if you want to, because the magazine is in the privacy of your home.
Ad-supported websites are no different whatsoever. The web server gives you HTML, JavaScript, some media, and together, it suggests a way for your browser to render the page. When you download the assets, you’ve acquired the “free magazine,” and your personal browser, in the privacy of your home on your own machine, decides how it should be displayed.
Imagine if there was a way for the ad-supported magazine to attempt to force you into spending 10 seconds on each page with ads. This sounds silly, but this is what Google is attempting to do. HTTP responses are nothing but simple chunks of data. You can use telnet to retrieve it without a browser, if you wanted. It’s simply a virtual analog to pages in a magazine.
That’s a great analogy and helps me understand your argument much better. There is something I think you’ve missed though, which is that advertisers pay to be in the publication, and they pay at the point the print occurs. Rendering in your browser is the analog to hitting the print button, not putting it on a server to be pulled down. In your analogy, the advertiser has paid already before you consume the magazine; but for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine. If you want to write a browser that still calls the ads api and plays the video in the background so YouTube gets the ad revenue but you have “cut it out” then I don’t imagine google would care half as much.
for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine
This is true. It does still line up with the freedom of consuming content the way you want on your personal browser, however.
Imagine playing a browser yourself. You use telnet to download the HTML for a video. You inspect it, and find that there is a JavaScript asset in the HTML. You make a GET request to fetch it. A dozen requests later, there is a link to an ad.
What do you do now? Are you obligated to submit a GET request to it? Do you not have a right to choose to skip it? Earlier, in telnet, you skipped downloading thumbnails that you didn’t care about, so how is this any different? Shouldn’t you be able to choose this? Say you didn’t have freedom, and you actually were obligated to type out a GET request to fetch the ad. After the ad has been downloaded, you are technically consuming the content offline in a cache. Now what?
Are you obligated to view it? It’s a stream of data. You could inspect the content in a hex editor as a way of viewing it, but it’s that enough? Did you actually consume it? Are you forced to use a functional media player on your personal device to play the ad? How much of the ad are you forced to watch? What difference does it make at this point, since you’ve obtained the data, and you’re left to your own devices? Shouldn’t you have the freedom to do what you want?
If YouTube does some ad payout stuff behind the scenes, server-side, then that’s server-side, and it isn’t any of your business. It’s the same as their data collection, sharing with third parties, building a profile on you, tracking hit counters, etc. In fact, they spend a lot of effort ensuring that it doesn’t become anyone’s business but their own. Just because the asset is an ad versus a JavaScript asset you also didn’t care about doesn’t matter. You have the freedom to consume the content that’s given to you in the privacy of your own home.
You could liken ads to free physical mailing list forms in the free magazine. Just because you obtained the magazine and the publisher makes money off you signing up for junk mail doesn’t mean you’re obligated to do it. You are given the option to request more media, and you are not forced to make any effort to cut it out of the magazine, fill it out, and mail it in. You’re also not obligated to read any amount of the junk mail that you receive as a result of the form. This is your choice, and you should be able to flip to the next page instead, which is equal to not being obligated to type GET requests by hand in a telnet console, which is equal to choosing not to make the requests in your browser.
I understand that they need the money to host the videos, but I won’t directly pay them considering how they treat viewers and creators. I’m pretty sure they would be $100+ richer from me if they didn’t remove the dislike count.
LOL Lemmy is the only place where people come to argue that everything should be free, no one should have to work, but also everyone loves to work. People around here are completely delusional.
All the arguments about tipping here are missing the point. The restaurant owner just came up with a bullshit way of raising the prices without showing larger numbers on the menu. That should honestly be illegal.
maybe it’s to allow take-away at a lower price, like a dine in vs eat out charge.
Very rare, I’m from Ireland & have only seen it once in a Chinese restaurant. They were very clear about it in the menu though so it wasn’t a sticker shock price
Reading the article, I’m not feeling too encouraged that this will actually impact small restaurants. From the article it sounds like the FTC is just going after large corporations.
The FTC is going to write a rule similar to what local governments have given themselves power to regulate. The article gave some examples, but it is not exhaustive.
I saw one called “nosleep”, likely by other names too, I wish they would add universal prefixes to names or use a deticated instance to host it. Just some flag that lemmy can work with
As a professional in this field, top reasons would be…
Dissatisfaction with pay
Limited/No career progression
Dissatisfaction with environment/culture
Dissatisfaction with management
Poor work-life balance
Poor job design/expectations of role
Poor taining quality/knowledge management
Inadequate tools/systems
Edit: I should also point out we have about half a dozen ping-pong tables scattered around my work and our turnover figures were bang on average for annual benchmarking against the sector. I consider the average too high, though, and will be targeting better retention over this year. We’ll need at least double the amount of ping-pong tables.
But I have no money and lemons are expensive! If only there was a way we could acquire lemons without paying for them… Anyone know where I could find a lemon tree?
Very correct. You can solve bad culture by throwing more money at the problem. Preferably all at once with zero maintenance budget or governance so that the amenities in question can become non-functional monuments to your superior culture. Future generations will find these and marvel at your ingenuity from the safety of the water cooler.
There’s some new research that shows raising pay is not great for retention. Studies say it’s better to take that money and put it into a long-term benefit line a pension, profit sharing, while life insurance with a cash out value, etc.
Strategic Workforce Planning. It’s a bit different to HR in that there’s a lot of data analysis. Typically we would use data to identify retention issues (reasons, areas, seasonality, etc) and figure out how to improve it. We’d then hand that over to HR to implement fuck up.
They only removed it because it interfered with a new feature they added to the mobile app. If they removed it for monetary reasons (like what they did with dislikes), they wouldn’t have brought it back
I’d argue that you have to be horrible already to have loads of money. Any reasonably good person would be using their excess wealth for a good cause rather than building ego rockets.
Money = power, and power corrupts. I’m sure there are some people who are horrible before they become wealthy, but I think money (and power) has a way of blunting peoples’ empathy.
Normal people stop exploiting others before they reach having unfathomable amounts of money. So somebody with different values and morals will never have so much money since it is impossible to make such money without being corrupt and a piece of shit
No. Assholes are assholes, and Elon is just an asshole with money.
Compare this man child to a billionaire like Yvon Chouinard, founder of the company Patagonia, and you’ll understand that money doesn’t change good people.
Thanks for the video. That guy seems to go off on a lot of tangents, sets up too many strawman and red herring fallacies. He also doesn’t actually prove that Yvon is somehow evil in a way that’s comparable to Elon, or that he lied about anything.
The only real criticism he had was to say that Yvon is purposely evading taxes and assigns that motive with absolute certainty (red herring).
It sounds to me like Adam has a problem with the system. Hell, he even said that it doesn’t matter if good work is actually being done, because he doesn’t like the idea of billionaires using their money for good. Then he goes on to give an example using Walmart (not an ethical company) and Bill Gate’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein… bizarre how he even went there as a way to disprove what Yvon has done with the company.
I’m not saying that Yvon or Patagonia are perfect. Heck, I don’t give a damn about the CEO of any company, and I think I only own one of their products, so I have no loyalties at all.
But they are a for-profit business (they are very clear about that) who operates under some of the most ethical guidelines available, and they have a multi-decade proven track record of environmental stewardship and human labor practices.
We need more companies like them, even if Adam doesn’t.
No need to sail them seas, but maybe still use a vpn, just on case. Fun fact i heard from a friend of a friend: Youtube starts rate limiting after 50,000 audio-only video downloads, until you have a new IP.
I’ve also noticed that sometimes it downloads the wrong versions of songs. While my Spotify playlist has the album version of a song, it might sometimes download a live performance audio or a reprise version.
I have hundreds upon hundreds of songs in my Spotify music library. Downloading them one by one sounds like hell. And then I wouldn’t be discovering new music either.
No but direct downloads are all the rage. Here are my two favorite sites for free music. Every track is available in either 320k MP3, or FLAC lossless. So they’re even better than Limewire ever was:
I’ve been pretty happy with YouTube music. I got legacied in due to Google Music shutting down and thought I would hate it, but I’ve had zero complaints. Plus, it comes with free YouTube Premium, so I haven’t seen an ad in years.
I have so many complaints, Google Play music was fine. It did exactly what I wanted it to.
YouTube music is like an alien looked at that app, and tried to recreate it exclusively by smashing it’s forehead against a keyboard until an app that started most of the time came out.
I would actually argue that Google Play Music was the best music streaming app that I’ve used. It was great being able to upload music from CDs of small local bands and have it right in there with the other streaming music.
Just today I had a hankering to listen to a specific song through my android auto, and instead of just being able to verbally ask the unit for that song, or even being able to search through the atrocity that is the YouTube Music interface on my head unit, I had to pull over, pull out my phone, search for the band, then click the uploads tab (because uploaded music does not show with the regular search results) and then click the song to get it to play.
It’s not optimal, and I would like for uploaded music to just show up in the regular search, but there is a top navigation bar where you can just switch between where to search (uploads being one of the options). Also YTM has the upside of showing YouTube uploads as well, I could always find obscure bonus EPs that only came with the physical CD because someone uploaded it, which is really handy
Yes and the glorious “playing near you” feature of Play Music. That made the best recommendations for local shows, and I mean local, within a few miles, not just bands I’d listened to but always relevant and often small shows! That feature, I found several new bands I liked that way and good live music. YouTube has nothing like that. Also interface not as intuitive, more cluttered. My kids like it better because they do like having the videos available, but as I do not give a fuck about that but do like live music this is still not as good as the Play Music.
YouTube music is like an alien looked at that app, and tried to recreate it exclusively by smashing it’s forehead against a keyboard until an app that started most of the time came out.
You think they that much care and attention into the app?
But seriously, yeah, I had pretty much the same experience -Google Play Music just worked beautifully, whereas YouTube Music was a steaming turd on Android. I gave up after six months and two phones and went to Deezer, never looked back
I would say the same myself. They don’t do the worst job for music discovery either which is important to me. Amazon Music drove me nuts constantly recommending Cage the Elephant and other well-known (profitable) artists instead of obscure music similar to my tastes.
Same. Honestly, I expected YTM to make things worse. That’s usually how those kinda things go. But it actually did get better for me. I jumped to Google Play Music because it had better selection than Spotify (at least back then). YTM kept that, but fixed the issues I was having with the desktop browser player sometimes getting stuck. And the more recent support for lyrics that are synced to the music is great.
Their queueing system sucks. All I want to do is queue up some songs but instead YTM fills my queue with tons of crap I’ve never listened to before because that’s how they make money. They put my manually queued songs at the END of the queue so I have to move them up 20+ spaces. There’s literally no way to do it other than creating a custom playlist every time I listen to music, and they intentionally made that take more clicks/taps than queuing. I don’t get how people are ok with the YTM app, it’s terrible.
I hate YTM and I hate that I can’t cancel it because they bundle it with YouTube premium, which my partner uses every day. Screw Google and they anti-consumer manipulative bs.
Their queueing system sucks. All I want to do is queue up some songs but instead YTM fills my queue with tons of crap I’ve never listened to before because that’s how they make money. They put my manually queued songs at the END of the queue so I have to move them up 20+ spaces. There’s literally no way to do it other than creating a custom playlist every time I listen to music, and they intentionally made that take more clicks/taps than queuing. I don’t get how people are ok with the YTM app, it’s terrible.
wrong.
you can disable automatic queuing by hitting the ‘auto-play’ switch in UP NEXT
you can queue songs by long-pressing and hitting ‘play next’ (which will put it in front of the queue) or ‘add to queue’ (which will put it in my the end
No, I’m not wrong. Option 1 does not exist on my phone. There is no switch.
And the “play next” feature also sucks. I don’t want to “play next”. I want to build a queue like literally any other music app and that isn’t what “play next” does.
Edit: I don’t see that “auto-play” switch on the web app in Safari either.
No. I’m not wrong, and I don’t appreciate you repeatedly telling me I am when you obviously have no clue what I’m looking at.
It isn’t there. I’m on Android 13 with the latest version of the app. There is no “auto-play” toggle anywhere. I’d upload screenshots to prove it but lemmy is throwing exceptions. I’ve checked every tab and settings page as well.
So I finally figured it out. this is how that toggle works:
it only appears when you manually search for a song or select a song from certain groups on the home page.
it does not appear to appear if you select a song from “listen again” or “quick picks” in which case the app forces you to listen to whatever is in their queue unless you manually clear the queue.
oh yeah, you are right-ish. it doesn’t show up if you launch a “radio”, which innately is a automatic, end-less playlist of similar music. I do agree though that this should be more visible in the UI
Way back before Scott Adams went completely off the deep end I had a tin of Dilbert branded mints called Encourage Mints. This is literally a joke from the hackiest office comic ever yet some manager(s) still thought it was good idea. WTF does business school teach?
Company making millions due to its workers efforts, while rewarding them with practically nothing? Sounds like business school is teaching capitalism perfectly.
I disagree. A higher turnover rate means paying the new guy less money. You’ll see this more often when they want to annoy people into quitting so they don’t need to pay unemployment.
They’re using the psychology correctly. It’s just awful for people as a whole. But it can temporarily make their books look good (high sales, low expenses) and justify bigger bonuses for the board.
Generally the people that can leave of their own will are the people you don’t want to leave though. You might save 20% or more on salary, but you also loosing far more in productivity.
High turnover only works when it doesn’t take long for employees to reach a productive level. Now that the market is tightened and there isn’t free money everywhere, companies that survived despite turnover are going to struggle as that cost becomes more obvious.
I suppose I must have at some point lol. Chrome doesn’t list it specifically but I did have website notifications on. I guess another solution would be let them finish deleting my account for inactivity 😂
One thing to remember in the future, is that recent versions of Android let you long-press on a notification(or half-drag in some modded OEM versions) and it’ll tell you what App sent that notification, and even give you options to disable that specific notification or all notifications from that app in general.
I’ve literally never even seen a website notification. I wasn’t aware they were a thing that existed. I imagine if you follow these simple steps, you too can enjoy the internet without fear.
I’ve done tech support for a few elder relatives, and most of them have a wall of browser notifications to a bunch of random crap, because they say yes to every popup that appears 🤦♂️
It’s pretty concerning that their first reaction to a random question is yes…
Just another type of popup I have my ad/script blockers block. As much as I hate that, I hate sites that don’t even let you back the fuck out properly even more.
CBS News, which is often shared on aggregates like this and Reddit, was one of the worst. I’ve had shady scam/porn sites that were easier to go back/close than CBS’s god damn website.
They’re useful in some cases. I used to use the Twitter website (PWA) and it was nice to get notifications without having to install the full bloated app. I use them for forums and web-based chat (like TheLounge IRC client), too
It’s the same mentality as people just pressing “Next” in an installer and wonder why their browser homepage is hijacked or why there are programs that they never installed. People see the “Block” or “Accept” options in the notifications dialog and press Accept without even reading, especially on mobile browsers (Chrome) where it asks you as if it’s a system message.
It’s tough for me to accept that these poor people still exist haha. I remember back in 2005 or so clearing upwards of 5 toolbars from various relatives’ browsers, but not so much since. I suppose notification management is the modern equivalent.
These people will never go away. The people have 16 push messages an hour, are the same people who had 7 IE toolbars, are the same people who had their VCR blinking 12:00, are the same people who couldn’t get the channel on their radio, are the same people who (presumably) kept buying snakeoil potions.
These are the people who would rather be annoyed at something than fix it, they’re the people who will spend hours living with problems rather than spend 1 hour learning how to resolve it.
Quite like the way that iOS handles it now. The only sites alllowed to request to send notifications are ones you have added to your Home Screen as PWAs
“Fuck no, I’m only putting up with your website’s bs to read this article, and fuck off with your auto play video. Me hitting pause and scrolling down does not mean I want you to make it float on my screen and resume playing.”
Agreed, but it can be useful sometimes. For instance, I’m writing this in the Voyager app, if I tap a link it will open it in Mulch. I also have UntrackMe, with that I can use any app for the link. The simplified view can also sometimes work when an app uses Android System Webview as it’s browser engine.
The last Firefox on android that really worked for me with the about:reader?url=http://… Ability to force pages into it was 68, which I keep around for that reason.
Most pages. You click the button on the right hand side of the address bar when it’s visible and it’ll always work. On some pages the button is hidden, so I’m guessing those don’t have an obvious way to format for reader mode.
Never “UBlock” always use “UBlock Origin”.“UBlock origin” is way better(filters) than UBlock(which has an accepted ads program,also owned by Adblock Plus). Its available for Firefox android.
Basically every computer hardware manufacturer is collecting telemetry and sending it home. If you’re using MacOS or Windows, your OS is doing it aswell
Or Android, or iOS, or a Chromebook, or whatever other OS you’re using next year, if it isn’t some sort of Linux/UNIX system… and even some of those might not be great, but at least you can find out.
I mean… Android and ChromeOS are Linux underneath. MacOS is… related to Unix. Hang on, I need to look up that lineage…
Also Lineage.
Edit: MacOS used/uses the Mach kernel, and uses code “derived from BSD”, vague as Wikipedia is. That could mean it’s a whole copy-paste or that it just borrows ideas from BSD.
MacOS has userland tools from some FreeBSD version (quite obsolete, IIRC). Also there’s a port of bhyve called xhyve for MacOS. Its kernel I wouldn’t expect to have much in common with BSDs.
I wouldn’t know about market share, but why would market share be a disqualifier to your statement? GrapheneOS and LineageOS are both massive projects with a lot of users. It should be mentioned for those that might be interested to know that they have an option for privacy. Not saying you were doing this, but I hate the defeatist attitude that everything tracks so why try? It’s wrong.
I use LineageOS and Linux and FOSS apps/software and selfhost services… if it’s something you care about, you can regain control and privacy over your data.
It’s not actually. That’s the second store they claim is the first. The real first was on Western. Coffee is the same though, you’re right, better to go to the roasterie
This I can actually weight in on a bit. They have their recipe under full version control and plant operations can only adjust it slightly without HQ doing an override. Not their air waste handling however, that is under local control.
My family ran a local sandwich shop for years. Here’s the problem.
If this is downtown, the local sandwich shop isn’t even there, in part because Starbucks helped price them out of being able to rent. Every supermarket now has a sandwich counter too, so local sandwich shops don’t do well in shopping centers either. Fast food has slightly improved their quality over the years so that’s more competitors at the low end. And Subway, period.
You’re paying for the convenience at Starbucks and in some cases convenience is valuable. If you don’t care about time and can go out of your way to a local sandwich shop, you get better food for less.
I was in an area like that once. It felt weird. Like I stepped into some alternative earth history where the franchises and chains all had different names. It was basically the same items for sale however.
Idk…local independent shops aren’t necessarily cheaper. There is a local coffee shop somewhat by me and it’s more expensive than Starbucks. Independent places don’t have the advantage of mass scale like the big name fast food and chain places do. When I go independent, I often find myself paying more money for less convenience. So it’s not even just convenience that you’re sacrificing
Yeah that can be true. Not all local businesses are competitively run.
While it’s true they don’t have the same economies of scale as large corporations, they also don’t have the same overhead. Starbucks coffee stands support a skyscraper full of bureaucrats somewhere. And Starbucks corporate has a stock price to worry about. Local shops don’t have all that crap, and can often get away with charging less. My dad just charged 15% below the corporate shop down the block, as a rule, and it was still profitable.
Nobody goes to Starbucks for good coffee, they go because it’s the same everywhere. Sometimes I want to go get a great coffee somewhere they know how to pull a decent shot, and sometimes I want brownish sugarmilk.
mildlyinfuriating
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.