517
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Almacca@aussie.zone 184 points 1 week ago

The number of ads I had popping up while trying to read that article isn't discouraging me from using adblockers.

[-] undefined@lemmy.hogru.ch 74 points 1 week ago

This is actually one of my favorite websites to browse on desktop through my VPN and extreme DNS blocking solution. The console just fills with blocked content and JavaScript errors, it really warms my heart.

If you see an ad, close the tab.

[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 84 points 1 week ago

Literally the only way they will learn. I really don't understand how we as a society have accepted ads as a necessary evil. We all hate them, but we all also make them work. It's horrible.

[-] sdcSpade@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 week ago

I've been wondering for a while where the point of diminishing returns is. Surely, at some point, ads become aggressive enough to have an adverse effect on advertisers?

load more comments (10 replies)

All these sites monitor engagement, they walk the line between maximum ads and users. If we decrease the users, they'll decrease the ads to try and keep us.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago

LOL, nah. If we decrease the users, they'll increase the ads to try to compensate for declining revenue. They believe they have all the power and don't give a fuck what we think.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 126 points 1 week ago

Lemme try and feel sorry for my cartoonishly rich tech overlords real quick.........

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 98 points 1 week ago

If the Google war on ad blocking meant the ad blockers accidently blocked something everyone wants its still Google fault.

Everything was fine until Google decided to change how everything works over and over again to get people to watch the awful ads they let on their platform.

[-] snooggums@piefed.world 18 points 1 week ago

Googlees don't "let" ads on their platform. Ads are the entire reason for the existence of their platform.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 92 points 1 week ago

Tldr: youtube forced ai into video monitoring and it keeps killing videos it shouldn't, so instead of saying Ai is bad they're blaming af blockers because why not lie when there's no repercussions?

YouTube views are dropping because they are using AI to vet and cull age innappropriate content from minors. the problem is the ai is very bad at its job and marks way too many videos as not advertiser friendly, which effectively kills YouTube promoting that video in feeds. this is the default view for new accounts, so you have to specifically turn off parental controls to see a normal feed. this started happening about 4 months ago. a number of channels I watch have made comments about this, including Redlettermedia

[-] Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

Not saying I don't believe that's what's happening, but the article mentions nothing about any sort of YouTube AI interference.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

I don't understand:

  • What is 'AI in video monitoring?'

  • The article mentions literally nothing about this, so where did that come from?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] alternategait@lemmy.world 86 points 1 week ago

I’m sure that the number of times I’ve decided “nah I don’t need to see that” after being told an ad blocker violated YouTube’s terms of service has absolutely nothing to do with it either.

[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 week ago

Even on a computer without ad blocker (work laptop, chrome browser)

the number of times i say "nah i don't need to see that" as soon as thes annoying ads comes up before the video...

The decline probably has very little to do with ad blockers.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Jestzer@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

For those curious what “adblockers said really happened”:

[AdGuard] suggested that the issue may have been linked to popular community-maintained filter lists like EasyList and uBlock’s Quick Fixes.

A new filter rule added to EasyList on August 11, 2025 targeted telemetry requests thought to be tied to YouTube’s view attribution and analytics.

That rule remained in place until September 10, when it was temporarily disabled.

A similar change was added to uBlock’s Quick Fixes on September 10 and removed on September 17.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 16 points 1 week ago

OK. I mean Fuck Alphabet anyhow, but this means a youtuber who relies on view counts for monetary income (I guess) would actually have reason to worry about adblockers?

Again, I'm not saying I'm against adblockers or even this particular feature. And I very well see what Google is doing here, trying to get their creators up in arms against adblocking. I just want to know if this is debunkable or if youtubers would have a genuine argument here.

I did not really understand above explanation. I guess I need it ELI5.

[-] orclev@lemmy.world 33 points 1 week ago

Basically Youtube instead of counting views via actual requests for the videos instead uses a separate call that essentially says "hey, someone watched this video". All the ad blockers rather than use a hard coded list of URLs to block which would quickly go stale instead use one of a couple different 3rd party lists the most popular of which is EasyList. EasyList decided to block the URL that youtube uses to register views on the principal that it was a privacy violation because it not only registers "hey someone watched this" but also captures exactly who watched it which allows Google to track your viewing habits.

[-] Funwayguy@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It wouldn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Put simply, Google can continue indirectly punishing creators for tolerating adblockers then redirect blame, even though they could have easily separated the metrics from the advertising and telemetry endpoints that blockers filtered. This way they get their money either from unblocked ads or from creator's reduced view counts, win-win for Google.

As an added bonus for Google, by ensuring view metrics get fucked up, it double punishes creators featuring sponsored content that rely on those metrics to determine how much the sponsor should pay them. Meanwhile Google could, in theory, sell ad placements attached to their own internal metrics that differ from the affected ones publicly visible.

[-] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 15 points 1 week ago

So you're saying Google packaged the viewcount that's relevant to monetization into a 3rd party js data request instead of just counting the actual video's views, and so manages to play content creators against privacy-conscious users?

Worthy of a Roman Emperor, that.

[-] Funwayguy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

See that's the fun part. Google is the ad company so it's all 1st party data. Google can package the Trojan horse however they please, which why it's such a fine line for the blockers to walk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 61 points 1 week ago

frustrated by ads that feel irrelevant

What?

Do they think we have a friend-or-foe system that only shoots down advertisements from adversaries?

An ad is an ad, and should be terminated on sight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] moopet@sh.itjust.works 60 points 1 week ago

Google know who they're streaming videos to. They know this from the back-end. They absolutely do not require a script running in the browser to phone home about it in order to count "views". All the telemetry they need they can get from existing traffic; the additional telemetry supplied by scripts is mostly just for Bad Reasons and it's morally fine to block it.

[-] SnotFlickerman 55 points 1 week ago
[-] User79185@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Blocking ads for decades everywhere, life is sooo goood without that cancer.

P.S. The only place were ads should appear are "yellow pages" thing, for example messenger channels just for that, where you intentionally join to look for local deals, discounts, contractors etc, especially to support local economy and not some megacorp. And ofc current google spying is not helping, block the ads, block trackers, it ruins the "steal the data" model.

[-] avatar@lemmy.zip 44 points 1 week ago

Didn't age verification - also recently implemented - cause youtube views to drop?

Here's a case of it very well explained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDPUzfwa4u0

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 40 points 1 week ago

caused youtube views count to drop

oh no... anyway

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

(shrug) don't care if it affects views, never should have had them in videos regardless.

[-] dan@upvote.au 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn't get money from you just watching the video.

[-] tabular@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Paying to access content makes a lot more sense that hoping someone willingly watches an advert on their own hardware.

An indirect, alternate could be universal basic income - which makes it easier for people to choose less profitable options.

[-] dan@upvote.au 10 points 1 week ago

A lot of people either don't want to pay, or can't pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we're a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] baines@lemmy.cafe 10 points 1 week ago

i really don’t care

rather do without than with ads

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FireWire400@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

It's gotten to the point where I have to re-load each YT tab three times before the video ever starts playing - only because I use uBlock.

Still better than watching ads, but it is getting annoying.

[-] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 19 points 1 week ago

I have a theory that YT deliberately makes you wait the length an ad would have been if you have uBlock Origin installed. Ive just let it "buffer" for 30 seconds or so and it will eventually load the video.

[-] Typhoon@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 week ago

I'd rather watch nothing than an ad trying to sell me something.

[-] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Still better tbh

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] BaroqueInMind@piefed.social 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I have the same problem, and after you start clicking play, often you can wait it out and the video will eventually play on its own after 10-15 seconds

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] muhyb@programming.dev 26 points 1 week ago
[-] LoremIpsumGenerator@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

*Goolag shooting itself on foot be like.

The dev community is just adapting to shit thrown.

[-] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

I don't use ad blockers, just normal YouTube. One thing I noticed about a month ago is that when I'm watching some silly video a 55 second ad will come on with about three minutes left to view on the video. It's at that point I usually just back out and look for other videos to watch. My grandson told me it seems odd because YouTube monetization requires the whole video to be viewed before they'll pay. Does this make sense? I don't know much about "monetization" I just watch silly videos.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
517 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

75701 readers
3288 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS