2345
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Darkhoof@lemmy.world 440 points 1 year ago

So many corporate bootlickers here, damn.

[-] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 195 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's like they think the only way to make money is to drown us in ads based off the telemetry they scoop up and we're entitled brats for wanting to have a say in how our data is harvested/used against us.

[-] raptir@lemdro.id 33 points 1 year ago

There's a paid service though.

Like I get the sentiment, and I use YouTube with uBlock Origin to avoid paying, but if you're not willing to pay and you're not willing to watch ads what are you proposing?

[-] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I didn’t say they can’t serve any ads. I said they’re drowning us in them - which even then I could tolerate except all the data they mine from us is ridiculous. Then they use opaque terms to weaponize it back at us to make us into little addicts who can’t look away and/or sell it to third parties. I do not agree with that so I do everything I can to make my telemetry worthless or otherwise inaccessible.

[-] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 55 points 1 year ago

This is a distinction that some defenders miss. A lot of people who use ad-blockers would be fine with ads if they were restrained and not too obtrusive. But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.

We went from 1 skippable 5 second ad per video to multiple ads every 10 minutes or so, sometimes even unskippable 15+ second ads or even more ads in a row. When is it going to be enough? Are we supposed to take them on their word that this is necessary, simply assuming that they need it because they don't even share financial numbers? Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?

Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] BReel@lemmy.one 38 points 1 year ago

I paid for paid for premium for a while. Then it showed me an ad for paramount + anyways. So I said fuck you google and installed an ad blocker.

Point being I was willing and did pay for the premium service. But even “ad free with premium” still wasn’t ad free. It was “ad reduced”

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 129 points 1 year ago

In the second quarter of 2023, Google's revenue amounted to over 74.3 billion U.S. dollars, up from the 69.1 billion U.S. dollars registered in the same quarter a year prior.

But man if we don't pay for youtube premium how will they survive?

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 58 points 1 year ago

I'll say it again: Google pays 5-year-old "influencers" millions of dollars. They have always harvested your data to provide these free services - selling ads was just icing. They still harvest your data and sell ads and they still make the same money they've always made - only now they are insisting that everyone watch ads or pay for it as well. And of course, eventually YouTube will insist that you watch ads and pay for it. This is the equivalent of "network decay" for streaming services. This is unreasonable and while there are exceptions to the rule, most people have the same reaction to what Google is doing here: surprise, and dismay, if not outright anger and disgust.

Yet every single thread about it on the Internet is utterly overflowing with people lecturing us about how we shouldn't expect something for nothing, as if we aren't fully aware that this is the most transparent of straw men. These people insist that we are the problem for daring to block ads - and further - that we should be thrilled to pay Google for this content, as they are. And they are! They just can't get enough of paying Google for YouTube! It's morally upright, it's the best experience available and money flows so freely for everyone these days, we should all be so lucky to be able to enjoy paying Google the way they do. And of course it's all so organic, these comments.

Suggest that Google pays people to engage this narrative, however, and you will be derided and downvoted into oblivion as if you were a tin-foil-hat wearing maniac. This comment itself is virtually guaranteed to be responded to with a patronizing sarcastic and 100% organic comment about how lol bruh everyone who disagrees with you must be a shill.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[-] Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world 308 points 1 year ago

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

As much as you may hate YouTube and/or their ad block policies, this whole take is a dead end. Even if by the weird stretch he's making, the current system is illegal, there are plenty of ways for Google to detect and act on this without going anywhere remotely near that law. The best case scenario here is Google rewrites the way they're doing it and redeploys the same thing.

This might cost them like weeks of development time. But it doesn't stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads. This whole argument is receiving way more weight than it deserves because he's repeatedly flaunting credentials that don't change the reality of what Google could do here even if this argument held water.

[-] crapwittyname@lemmy.ml 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're missing the point/s

  1. What they're doing is illegal. It has to stop immediately and they have to be held accountable
  2. What they're doing is immoral and every barrier we can put up against it is a valid pursuit
  3. Restricting Google to data held remotely is a good barrier. They shouldn't be able to help themselves to users local data, and it's something that most people can understand: the data that is physically within your system is yours alone. They would have to get permission from each user to transfer that data, which is right.
  4. This legal route commits to personal permissions and is a step to maintaining user data within the country of origin. Far from being a "dead end", it's the foundation and beginnings of a sensible policy on data ownership. This far, no further.
[-] Demuniac@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I'd guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they've had enough.

[-] HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I think it's a question of drawing a line between "commercial right" and "public good".

Mathematical theorems automatically come under public good (because apparently they count as discoveries, which is nonsense - they are constructions), but an artist's sketch comes under commercial right.

YouTube as a platform is so ubiquitously large, I suspect a lot of people consider it a public good rather than a commercial right. Given there is a large body of educational content, as well as some essential lifesaving content, there is an argument to be made for it. Indeed, even the creative content deserves a platform.

A company that harvests the data of billions, has sold that data without permission for decades, and evades tax like a champion certainly owes a debt of public good.

The actions of Google are not those of a company "seeking their due", for their due has long since been harvested by their monopolisation of searches, their walked garden appstore, and their use of our data to train their paid AI product.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[-] ugjka@lemmy.world 54 points 1 year ago

Ah yeah the kind of hullabaloo that makes everyone accept cookies on every single website ;)

[-] gian@lemmy.grys.it 36 points 1 year ago

This whole thread is a whole lot of hullabaloo about complaining about legality about the way YouTube is running ad block detection, and framing it as though it makes the entire concept of ad block detection illegal.

Nope, the point is that, at the moment, Google seems to look where it should not look to know if a user has an adblocker and they don't ask for permission.

Let put it in another way: Google need to have my permission to look into my device.

But it doesn’t stop Google from refusing to serve you video until you watch ads.

Which is fine as long as Google can decide that I am using an adblocker without violating any law, which is pretty hard.

Of course Google could decide that it is better to leave EU and it law that protect the users, but is it a smart move from a company point of view ?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (45 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 220 points 1 year ago

Everyday I think the European Union for preventing the internet from being worse than it could be. It's sad that back when the internet was a cesspool was so far the best age for it. Normies really do ruin everything

[-] twotone@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago

Don't be an asshole and blame regular people for shit like this. This is because of big tech

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 80 points 1 year ago

Actually I will, because big Tech used to be on the level because they knew they would be called out for fuckery. Then Facebook brought the Baby Boomers online and it was the Eternal September on steroids.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 33 points 1 year ago

This is the same chicken / egg thing as plastic pollutions.

Sure consumers choice of whether to discard or recycle a plastic straw is nothing compared to the decisions of corporations, but then consumers invest in those companies, buy their products, and elect representatives who do not hold them accountable.

Big tech has ruined the internet because people were willing to trade their privacy and their attention in order to watch gifs of cats playing the piano. I'm not "blaming" people for that - hell, I was one of them, but you can't solve the problem without understanding how it's perpetuated.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Klystron@sh.itjust.works 168 points 1 year ago

Every tech article I read nowadays I feel like has the appendix, "which is illegal in the EU." Lol

[-] asbestos@lemmy.world 107 points 1 year ago

The only thing still preventing mayhem along with California

[-] Veneroso@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago

Seriously. Everything causes cancer which has the unfortunate effect of dulling the fear response but it is good to know. If you want to sell your product in California, which is where silicon valley is, you need to observe their safety standards.

And thank the EU we might actually get right to repair.

Elon can block EU for Twitter if he wants to but it's probably going to cost him even more.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] florge@feddit.uk 149 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

unless it is strictly necessary for the provisions of the requested service.

YouTube could quite easily argue that ads fund their service and therefore an adblock detector would be necessary.

[-] Flaimbot@lemmy.ml 177 points 1 year ago

that's not how it is to be interpreted.
it means something like in order for google maps to show you your position they NEED to access your device's gps service, otherwise maps by design can not display your position.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 151 points 1 year ago

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

Correct. Youtube can still play videos on your screen on a technical level without the need for adblocker detection. Their financial situation is not relevant in that respect.

This is why I've never had an issue blocking ads. Pick a couple creators you like, join their patreon or buy some merch. You owe YT nothing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Bipta@kbin.social 42 points 1 year ago

Just replying to confirm that "strictly necessary" has never meant, "makes us money." It means technically necessary.

[-] blargerer@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago

Adblock detection has literally already been ruled on though (it needs consent). I'm sure there are nuances above my understanding, but it's not that simple.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] demosthememes@lemmy.dbzer0.com 123 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I only just posted a meme about the EU flooring companies for going against their regulations. It was my first post too :)
I'd really like to add YouTube to it. Godspeed.
Image

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] TheBlue22 111 points 1 year ago

Thank fuck for EU and GDPR

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Pxtl@lemmy.ca 91 points 1 year ago

... We're gonna get another cookie click-through, aren't we?

[-] dx1@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you consent to our use of intrusive browser detection, anti-cheat, rootkit usage and invasive brain implants to bombard you with ads?

Yes | Also yes but more annoying to click through

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 85 points 1 year ago

Another three cheers for the EU! 🇪🇺🍻🥂

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _bac@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago

I am not paying for Premium again until they bring the dislike button back.

[-] onichama@feddit.de 72 points 1 year ago

I am not paying for Premium.

[-] amir_s89@lemmy.ml 58 points 1 year ago

It was pathetic for them to hide away this button with its statistics. Honestly it's an valuable tool.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] spiderman@ani.social 73 points 1 year ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SneakyWeasel@lemmy.world 62 points 1 year ago

Don't ask how, but my dad found out that at least with Ublock, cleaning the cache in the addon makes it bypass the stupid pop-up.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] nicknoxx@feddit.uk 57 points 1 year ago

As an English person I thought yay that means us. Then I remembered. . .

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Not that the social media corps have ever given a shit.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
2345 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59192 readers
2406 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS