742
YouTube’s anti-ad blocking test gets even pushier with a new timer
(www.androidpolice.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
742 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
2848 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
No. This is why if a service loses sight of its core value proposition, it dies.
If youtube is actually successful in killing adblocking on their service - which I suppose a server-side timer could actually do - then they will only succeed in killing their relevance, just like so many social media seem to be doing right now.
I pay for services like a debrid and VPN, because they provide me with the services I need. For very few dollars a month I can get 4K streaming from their servers 24/7. That is all hosting should cost. If the fediverse version of youtube, peertube, became mainstream then collectively people should have absolutely no problem maintaining those costs from the users' side.
Once that happens and mainstream video streaming is part of the fediverse, I think the network effect that governs social media might snowball until eventualy centralised social media is a thing of the past.
Do not pay for youtube, whatever you do. Let them die.
You think too much of the average person. This sort of thing might affect you, but it won't affect your friend's 8 year old brother or his parents who just want a convenient way to watch pewdiepie
Perhaps, but you can only crush so much blood from a stone and the masses are slowly becoming destitute.
Social networks don't succeed or fail on casual viewers alone. Youtube is a video sharing site, not a content producer. If they get so toxic that the content producers start finding alternatives, then the casual viewers won't all leave right away.
If it gets so bad that big creators, like pewdiepie, have alternatives that grow in relevance and youtube loses its critical market share then it will eventually lose the casual viewers too, especially if those alternatives aren't up to their eyeballs in ads.
We saw this with digg losing its place to reddit, where they sold out their content to publishers. Content got thinner and worse until the vast majority of users left for reddit.
This may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back. For reddit it was the API lockdown, for twitter it's... well I could point to any number of individual decisions but let's just call them Elon Musk. Facebook hasn't quite hit that tipping point yet I don't think.
With youtube I can easily see this being part of a string of decisions to promote publisher content over user content. They're already selling views which could really sink them in the end.
https://youtu.be/CtUuab1Aqg0
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/CtUuab1Aqg0
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
"Soon we will have a new web. One far younger and far more powerful."
lol this post is nothing more than a tantrum from a leech of a service they're too cheap to pay for and scrabbling for reasons other than said cheap-ness
you may get likes on the internet for this wholly selfish take but we all know it's nothing more than that.
It's just devastating when you invent unwholesome motivations for my words to attack as an alternative to attacking the ideas themselves.
My ego is in tatters.
You do realize the average person watches YouTube on their TV or their phone, with ads? You are not the target audience for Google.
So I fully expect YouTube to kill adblocking at some point and they might lose what? 10% of users? Of which 5% either come back to watch ads or pay the subscription because all the content is on there?
I'm 100% pro adblocker, the internet is a mess without, but it's stupid to think YouTube wouldn't cut you off the moment you don't provide any benefit to their service (For example despite adblocking you might give Superchat money to streamers, or join Streamer memberships).
Audience is only part of the equation, arguably not the largest part. How many content creators use adblock? The big ones already know how completely meaningless ad revenue is because youtube doesn't pay them enough and they are already aware of how easy it is to block ads. Also they're more likely to be using youtube on a desktop because they use one to create, and they also are more aware of the alternatives like revanced. A lot of big creators have spoken out over the years in favour of adblocking.
If youtube makes it impossible for creators to use their own platform they'll leave in droves, and they will have the voice to encourage their audience to follow. Youtube isn't the main voice on their own site, the creators are.
Another thing this will impact is the ability for creators to collaborate, since they would have to watch others' ads in order to see their videos.
Once that happens, the audience will naturally follow. That's how social media sites have failed in the past. They've pissed off the power users to the point they finally left, then the content declined, then users followed.
Youtube is making the same mistake all capitalist entities do, of mistreating the people who actually make the product they're selling. It's a fundamental contradiction that only leads to decline in the end, it's just a matter of when. This may not be the straw that breaks the camel's back, if this isn't it, then something down the line will be.
Dude, it's at most 20 bucks a month to get rid of all ads (with YouTube music on top). Any creator who has some following can pay that from pocket change. The big content creators (1M+ subscribers) pull in millions with a mix of ad money and sponsorships. And it would be a business expense on top for them..
Creators are the last person to actually care about YouTube forced ads, it's their job, they can afford it easily.
The only ones really impacted are power users, people who use adblock right now to watch. Which would also include me. But what do you want to do? There is no other platform, if they block adblockers I either have to watch ads or finally pay them money. I'm not going to leave for another platform because there is none. Twitch is there, sure, but it's only for livestreams and awful for VODs.
$20/mo would have kept me fed for the better part of a month a couple years ago. Money has almost never not been tight, often to the point of being inhumane.
If they start forcing ads, I'll just do what I used to do when I didn't have home internet and start downloading videos instead. Which is nicer to be able to hold onto anyway. If someone doesn't like me "stealing," they can fucking pay me.
Not sure what kind of shit take that is if you bought a $70 game recently (Baldur's Gate 3, even I'm waiting for a sale and money is not tight for me), you have cats and probably a Nintendo Switch with Zelda, that's just what I read on the first page of your profile. So you obviously have money to spend on entertainment, like most adults.
$20 is clearly too much just to get rid of ads (though it also gets you YouTube Music, like Spotify), but I was talking about content creators who can easily afford this. And most people spend hours on YouTube, probably more time than they use Netflix if we're being honest.
I don't like Google either, but at some point they need to make money. That's the simple truth. If everyone used adblockers we'd see a lot more content locked down behind a paywall. It is what it is. Then you either pay or you find some other source of content.
And let's be real, people pay for entertainment. If I go outside and throw a stone it would probably hit someone with a Netflix/HBO/Disney+/Spotify/Prime or whatever subscription. It's difficult to find a person who doesn't have Netflix for example. If Google forces this through YouTube will just be another subscription service (or you get ads). Or they start limiting uploads to save on cost, which would actually kill their platform (as probably 99% of uploaded videos are barely or never watched, around one hour of video per second is getting uploaded right now).
Youtube constantly screws over and underpays the people who create all of the content that makes their site possible whilst also demanding they pay for a service that is worse than what adblockers already offer whilst also running a business that relies solely on critical mass of users rather than any actual value that youtube themselves can uniquely provide. That could never backfire.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/4Q3ZXQZZlcE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Or you could say they have tolerated adblockers until now and allowed you to use their service without a paywall. Yes, it sucks, we're used to blocking ads, but it was like having free lunch.
There have been plenty of other platforms who tried to do what YouTube did, they all failed. YouTube provides a massive infrastructure, about one hour of video is getting uploaded to their servers every second. And it must be kept around, so the amount of data only goes up. A total nobody can upload a 100 hours of video and YouTube will gladly accept that and still make those videos available 5 years from now.
To say they don't provide a relatively unique (or at least very difficult) service is insanity.
I pay a very small fee for debrid and VPN servers that offer exactly the same server capacity with enormous bandwidth and virtually no downtime. Plenty of services exist that can do what Youtube does. Peertube is a fediverse youtube that is based on a P2P model that lessens those burdens significantly, and it will grow with its users.
The thing that makes youtube dominant is the same thing that makes other social media platforms dominant: users and creators.
They are squeezing those users and creators as much as they think they can without completely alienating them and forcing them to find a better alternative. Once they pass the tipping point and an exodus begins, history shows they will only worsen things and accelerate the process.
The thing about the game of "how much closer can I fly to the sun without losing everything?" is that they will inevitably lose. You can moralise all you want, the reality is that they are getting closer and closer to losing every day. When they get there, you can blame whoever you want, it won't change anything.
Did you just compare your small private server with YouTube's infrastructure? Jesus Christ.
Google had already been paying about 2 million a month for bandwidth in 2015 or so.
I work for a larger company as a software developer, even with a billion in gross sales, there is absolutely no chance to provide even a tenth of YouTube's service. Especially for free (without paywalls). The company would go bust in two years.
I didn't, I compared globe-spanning networks of servers that serve millions of people every day to youtube. Those two things don't seem that different to me. They scale with user numbers just fine.
I mean you work for a larger company as a software developer, and you don't understand the concept of debrids and VPNs? Are you sure you're not deliberately missing the point of what I'm saying?
VPN has absolutely nothing to do with hosting a video platform, no clue why you even bring it up.
Debrids is just a file download service, isn't it? But even if it was a video hosting platform, a single server would never be enough. You need at least two (as a fall back). Then you need dynamic scaling for bigger user numbers, which works just fine for CPU and RAM (or even GPU resources), but doesn't work for storage. So you need extra storage somewhere all servers have access to, but when it comes to videos you'd be paying millions in no time.
So you need your own cheap storage and datacenters around the world. And CDNs on top to serve your content worldwide (otherwise the experience would suck on another continent if your server is too far away).
Look up how Google does it, they have their own data storage centers. And if your video is crappy and you're a nobody, it probably gets stored in a slower location on-demand. So it also loads slower. But if your video is in high-demand with millions of views it gets pushed into a more accessible location (and gets higher priority for CDNs). It's not just hosting, there is a massive amount of logic and software behind the stack.
You have demonstrated a complete inability to grasp what a VPN does, what a debrid service does, that they already do the things you've mentioned, and you have yet to acknowledge peertube even exists. I brought it up, multiple times, for a reason.
I have to ask at this point, are you curious to understand my position? I don't see much point in continuing to explain it to you if you're not.
I am struggling to understand yours. There doesn't seem to be a coherent idea that you're driving towards other than to tell me I'm wrong, which isn't a position as much as an antiposition. If you have a position, I would appreciate you explaining it clearly.
You use a VPN when you either don't trust your ISP (or the current network connection you are on) or you want to hide who you really are on the internet. Both are absolutely unnecessary when accessing a video hosting platform (you can do this, but you don't have to). A VPN is also more on the user side of things to connect to a server, the server doesn't care if you use a VPN.
Debrid just makes accessing files easier as far as I can see. Like you give it a torrent link and it provides you a direct download? That's nice and all for piracy, but has absolutely nothing to do with a video hosting platform like YouTube. You could use Debrid to download the video file from a host, but we are talking about providing the actual host you store the videos on.
I absolutely do not get the points you are trying to make, do you have an example for an infrastructure like YouTube you could build out of a VPN and Debrid?
Peertube would be an alternative of course, but it obviously has tons of its own issues (mainly resources, it still costs too much to host a large instance and if you try to access one video a million times things would straight up implode). I don't see a realistic YouTube alternative without investing millions.
I am not saying a VPN or a debrid are necessary, only that they demonstrate the bandwidth and storage capability at scale for low cost, on which peertube could run, which would presumably scale with interest in the platform. It's not complicated.
I won't explain any further unless you tell me, specifically, that you are curious to understand what I am saying.
Now listen, Debrid isn't actually providing any meaningful bandwidth. It's a third party (fourth party?) service.
What they are doing is simple: For their paying users (no clue what it costs without making an account, $3 a month?) they offer fast direct downloads. But they aren't even storing the data themselves (besides caching)! They use premium accounts for other file hosters to get around the download throttling. So instead of you being limited to 1 MB/s or less for most downloads Debrid uses their account to download at full speed, then give you the file.
So they are pretty much abusing other hosters by allowing their own users to share a premium account for various file hosting platforms. Which will work so long until these hosters start aggressively blocking accounts that use too much bandwidth.
In addition to that you are paying Debrid money, $4 or something a month? If every YouTube user even paid $1 a month there would be zero need for ads. You are right, bandwidth is relatively cheap, but getting people to pay is difficult. Your suggestion would basically be that YouTube now forces everyone to pay $2 a month or they can't access the service (or only 480p videos or whatever), which would work! But is far less suitable than charging more for no ads and have only one out of hundred(?) users pay while the rest happily watches ads.
If every user threw in some coins per month we could have services with zero ads. But even a cheap subscription like $1 or $2 is often too much to convert users. The service has to be free, so that out of a million users maybe a few hundred actually pay.
You're wrong about debrid services, they store everything, I assume you don't use them.
But I'm afraid I won't "listen here". You can't even pretend to be interested in what I'm saying, apparently, so there's no point in me continuing to explain.
Obviously I don't use them, I'm just reading about how they work. And they seem to give you access to other hosters instead of hosting all the files on their own servers, right?
You haven't explained shit so far, all you did was say again and again "Debrid", "VPN"!
Which are just services, but you said zero about the infrastructure behind running them (besides mentioning it must be cheap). You could clear this up in a single sentence.