Youtube let the other shoe drop in their end-stage enshittification this week. Last month, they required you to turn on Youtube History to view the feed of youtube videos recommendations. That seems reasonable, so I did it. But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don't get much from my choices. It still did a pretty good job of showing me stuff I was interested in watching.
Then on Oct 1, they threw up a "You're using an Ad Blocker" overlay on videos. I'd use my trusty Overlay Remover plugin to remove the annoying javascript graphic and watch what I wanted. I didn't have to click the X to dismiss the obnoxious page.
Last week, they started placing a timer with the X so you had to wait 5 seconds for the X to appear so you could dismiss blocking graphic.
Today, there was a new graphic. It allowed you to view three videos before you had to turn off your Ad Blocker. I viewed a video 3 times just to see what happens.
Now all I see is this.
Google has out and out made it a violation of their ToS to have an ad blocker to view Youtube. Or you can pay them $$$.
I ban such sites from my systems by replacing their DNS name in my hosts file routed to 127.0.0.1 which means I can't view the site. I have quite a few banned sites now.
Tbh, I block ads when I can but have a hard time getting angry about this. YouTube is both incredibly useful and incredibly expensive to operate -- seriously, what other service lets you upload hours of HD video which anyone in the world can access instantly, indefinitely, for free, and at the same scale YT does? It's a peerless engineering marvel and it would be a tragedy if it were to shut down. If seeing some short skippable ads is what it takes to keep that resource viable, that's honestly pretty fair.
I just pay for YouTube Premium. It gets me YouTube Music, so for slightly more than the cost of Spotify I get music streaming and ad-free YouTube, and the channels I watch on YouTube get more value out of my streaming than if I watched with ads. And far more than if I watched with an adblocker.
Google Play Music was so much better than YouTube Music, unfortunately, but YouTube Music is still usable.
I understand that everyone hates ads. I hate ads, too. But video streaming and content creation aren’t free. I want to support the platform and support the creators whose content I enjoy, and I don’t want ads. So YouTube Premium seems like the easy option.
Well, would ya look at Mr/Ms moneybags over here.
If you're broke like me, get libretube on PC and newpipe on Android.
If you're on iOS, may Satan have mercy on your souls.
I’ll admit I make good money. I work in software.
But I’ve been paying that since before I was making good money. Again, this is my music streaming platform. I would be paying $10/month to Spotify if I weren’t paying $14/month to YouTube.
(Actually I looked into my subscription while typing this, and I’m still paying the grandfathered price of $9.99/month for YouTube Premium. Pretty sweet, that.)
FYI, that grandfathered price goes away after December
That's a shame, but the benefits still outweigh the cost in my mind. I hate ads, so what I get out of a YouTube Premium subscription is far more than what I get from Netflix or Max.
(And I realize I can get all of this for free by going around the TOS, but if I have the money I might as well support the service.)
AdGuard and Vinegar on safari, uYouPlus from Altstore
Not really being reasonable. I don't make much above min wage but buy YT Premium
Its reasonable for a lot of us
Vivaldi browser just came out for iOS and has Adblock support. So does Firefox focus. Also, invidious/piped is always an option.
Using AdGuard and Vinegar to use YouTube in Safari, I can’t remember when I last saw an ad. It’s not ideal, but it works well enough.
The tragedy is that the centralized, profit-driven, socially-damaging platform keeps so much value under ransom because the parent company can operate it for so long at a loss.
I get that the platform is a marvel, it's just disappointing that its purpose is tailored to keep eyes watching more ads rather than contribute to society as a whole.
I would have more sympathy for Youtube if 1. it wasn't the de-facto standard where essentially all video media gets uploaded to (which Youtube itself has done everything in its power to make happen) and 2. the company that owned it didn't also own the most popular phone OS, most popular search engine, most popular email provider, most popular ad network, most popular maps, most popular online office suite, most popular airline booking, 2nd most popular cloud hosting... The list goes on
Until a federated solution like peertube gains more traction I have no problem paying content creators directly via patreon, and do everything in my power to not pay Google a dime. Trust me, they can afford it just fine.
I only looked into blocking ads sometime around like 2014-2016? I was perfectly fine with them for a very long time, they got more and more invasive and poor quality to the point I looked into blocking them. Haven't gone without an ad blocker ever since. No way in hell am I dealing with the current state of YouTube ads which are drastically worse than what pushed me to start blocking them to begin with.
I started blocking ads on various websites when they got so numerous that it would actually lag my computer and make things hard to use. That was also around the time YouTube started pushing more unskippable ads. I was only ever mildly annoyed by the occasional sidebar ad and waiting 5 seconds at the start of a video, but when ads started covering websites and interrupting videos, I sought and found the ad blocking community. They did it to themselves.
What angers me is the capital deciding to control everything. Enshittifying ads, pushing narratives, censoring valuable content. If it were a worse service but with better owners, I'd pay more.
Norway, Sweden, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, and others have it as part of law that Works Councils get 33% of the seats on the board of directors, and employees are elected to take up those roles. In Slovenia, Germany, and Slovakia, it is as high as 50%. That's the kind of ownership we should demand and then some, where average people get to have a say in what's going on at YouTube. Then maybe we'd get more ethical business decisions and choices we'd be more on board with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_representation_on_corporate_boards_of_directors
This reminds me of how certain universities in the US allow space for Student Senate representatives so that the student body directly has influence on the outcomes of the university. Great idea really
The issue is that ads on YouTube used to be fairly innocuous. Now I get batshit conspiracies pushed, non-stop Aussie gambling ads and so on.
Where I was once happy to sit through some food ads, or some tourism ads to support the platform. I'm not happy being blasted with non-stop, low-quality propoganda.
Granted the $22 family plan for me and my wife has worked well. We both use youtube music extensively as well. It's the only streaming service I pay for, the only other subscription I have is for a VPN.
If google cant afford youtube, they could sell it. But they easily can, so Im not losing sleep over the $2 a week they lose from me.
Or, alternatively, if the ads were reasonable, next to no one would feel any real obligation to block them. But they arent, so why should I be concerned about the sites funding?
Like, google isnt some poor struggling indie dev who cant make ends meet. Im not exactly overflowing with sympathy for their business decisions. Theyre the reason adblock is required for modern internet use.
YouTube is greedy. They make plenty of money without stuffing in more ads and pulling crap like this. I don’t use an ad blocker, but I’ve considered it (or just dumping YouTube completely) because they have really ramped up the ad interruptions. I’d subscribe if they had a cheap YouTube-only plan. But they don’t. You either have to pay for bundled music or TV and I don’t want or need either.
Yes, there are business costs, but they don’t produce the content they air, and their payout to those who do produce the content is a relative pittance. Their infrastructure is shared among other Google products, so it’s not like they’re having to pay for all their server racks out of a single budget. And I’m sure Google is trying to figure out how to train AI on all the content that’s posted there. Not to mention all the pirated content posted to YouTube that Google is making money from, without compensating the creators or copyright holders.
If was running a competing business like Facebook, or Amazon, I would seriously consider ramping up a competing product.
The amount of ads on YouTube only seems to get more and more invasive over time. And I'd have less of a problem with them if they didn't keep showing me the same ads over and over and over again.
Even with all that, I would pay (subscription wise, not like I haven't rented/bought movies from them) if I actually knew where the money was going. YouTube is surely expensive to operate, but we don't know how much money it costs to actually run it vs how much money is extracted via executives and shareholders.
If you read around you'll find (perhaps surprisingly to you) that YouTube operates at a loss. So in response to your points:
You can pay to get the ads removed. They make less money off of you when they can't serve you ads, and I'm sure they're trying to operate at less of a loss.
Alphabet is a public company, and it must release certain information about YouTube. Anyways, I'm pretty sure they aren't using the money to directly line the shareholder profits. The reality of it is that it's probably just another arm that Alphabet uses as part of its monopolistic tech deathgrip, so it's not gonna be a straightforward computation. Maybe Disney could be used as a metaphor here?
If you don't wanna pay to support that, I don't exactly blame you. But practically, I don't really agree/expect that YouTube should serve you content (or even more so, people with aggressive adblockers) without you giving something in return. Either you eat ads, you pay for a subscription, or you become the product (unfortunately this last point might be true irregardless).
Basically every tech company "operates at a loss" because of overzealous growth and money going to their investors/parent company/shareholders. I've never seen a detailed breakdown of any tech company's financials released publicly, so I doubt there's any way to prove this one way or another.
Genuinely I'd be interested in seeing a source for this since every metric I've seen from third parties is that ad free purchases gives them waaaaaay more money per user compared to the tiny RPU from ads. But maybe Google being its own ad provider changes that
Never said I was owed anything by them, just that I have no moral or ethical qualms continuing to use adblock on a giant corporation
Where do you read that Youtube is operating at a loss? The last article I can find mentioning that is from something like 10 years ago.
In the last few years they have split Youtube income out of the overall income and it's not like they aren't making money with it - roughly $7B in the last report I can find.
Let's not forget that the strategy of operating at a loss is arguably anticompetitive and monopolistic - not every company has the luxury of doing that, making it extremely difficult to compete against them. Seems pretty clear, with the incessant ads, that they've accomplished the first step in that and are rounding the corner to extracting capital from their users now. So they're not exactly a benevolent actor in this either.
The problem is that YouTube went from "short skippable ads" to almost all ads. It also is a major invader of privacy.
I share the same sentiment but I can see why someone might want to not support Youtube in any way because they don't want to support Google's stranglehold on the internet. Unfortunately the correct way to address that problem is sensible regulation. Call me skeptical, but that's not gonna happen anytime soon.
Just like a few of the other posts, I honestly don't get it. If they can't sell your data and can't serve you ads, then why would they want to spend money serving you for free? There's so many people complaining how YouTube has a monopoly and how it's not even that hard to run, but I seriously doubt these people. Transcoding video and distributing it worldwide while having automated moderation is not easy or cheap. If there were serious contenders in the space people would have moved on, and I don't think it's just the network effect that keeps YouTube as a dominant player here.
People despise ads, but then they want content for free. They use adblockers to bypass a primary revenue source for a website, then go all surprised Pikachu face when that website doesn't welcome them. And then they get upset that they don't want to be the product despite not willing to be a source of ad revenue. I'm willing to pay for YouTube premium (and other subscription models to get rid of ads), but a lot of people aren't. And honestly, I really would rather those people simply leave the site. It would lower operating costs for YouTube (I don't expect my subscription fees to go down but maybe their engineers will have more free time to work on features besides adblocker-blocking), and more people on different sites would lead to more competition.
If you aren't willing to eat ads, and you aren't willing to be the product, and you aren't willing to pay a subscription, then why do you think you're entitled to content?
You have it perfectly backwards: YouTube wants content for free, and to not have to share any but the most pitiful fractions of ad income with the ACTUAL content creators.
YouTube does not produce content, others do. YouTube has gone out of its way to dick the vast majority of them, especially the smaller ones, to the point that as such, unless you have a Patreon, a website or store of your own, corporate sponsors, merch, or some other side hustle in addition to making YouTube content, you're literally making content for a fraction of a penny per view, and entirely at your own cost.
And even then, you're subject to an algorithm over which you have no control and which can just as fickly ban your content to oblivion as it can raise your content to the multi-million views club. By skipping YouTube ads and finding other ways to support the content creators I enjoy, I help give my creators a financial buffer from the unpredictable vagaries of the algorithm and also withhold reward from YouTube as well.
When YouTube shared ad revenue with content creators in a much more equal fashion, I did not have a problem with their ads. But several years ago -- I want to say six or seven, but it's been going on for at least ten -- YouTube got greedy with the ads AND with becoming incredibly unstable and unreliable for creators in all manner of ways AND decreasing payouts to creators all along the way, at which point it became clear that me watching an ad or not no longer affects the content creators I enjoy at all. And they are the only reason I am on YouTube to begin with.
(And don't get me started on all the copyright/demonetization scams there are on YouTube now: I have a friend who got a copyright strike for playing a C scale on a piano because some asshole claimed it and YouTube lets them do it: even when a creator gets views, they can get demonetized at a drop of a hat even for obviously ridiculous claims, and then that revenue goes to the person making the copyright claim. Win/win for everyone except the person who actually made the content.)
Over the years, YouTube has never failed to excel at two things: server space, and fucking its golden geese, the creators of the actual content, without which no one would be making any money there at all. So get back to us when YouTube recognizes the creators of the gold mine they have in the content hosted there, and once again finds a way to respect for the amount of time and effort and cost that goes into creating that content by sharing revenue with content creators in a more equitable manner.
TL;DR: Why should I watch ANY YouTube ads at all when I can support content creators via Patreon or a creator's website and know that a much more equitable amount of that revenue will go straight to the creator of that content, where it belongs?
They shouldn't. If they can't figure out how to make money with it they should close it down. If they insist on thinking about it as a product and it doesn't make money, it's a product that doesn't make sense and should not exist. If the only way you can make people use your product is by giving it away, what does that tell you about it?
They could lock down the platform behind paywall but they don't want to do that. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want all the free videos being uploaded but they don't like all the free viewers. Unfortunately they go hand in hand.
You CANNOT pay for your content there, even if you want to.
Has it never occurred to you that YouTube gets all their content FOR FREE?
You can only pay to make Google even richer. That's all your money can do there. Nothing else.
Perhaps YouTube gets all their content for free, but it certainly isn't free to transcode video, host it reliably, and distribute it while moderating it (given how bad Twitter is right now I'm sure they have a decent number of measures in place, even if they aren't even "good" at it). And if it was remotely easy, believe me, there would be a lot of competition in this space.
Yes, I make Alphabet x dollars richer (or really, I make YouTube operate at a slightly lesser cost) every month by paying a subscription. And actually, I'm okay with it. A tiny cut of it goes to content creators and I get a nice piece of tech. And I support the branch of Alphabet that has technology that I think is incredibly useful and beneficial. If there's a content creator that I like especially then I'll support them directly.
The reality of it is that things cannot be free. Or at least it seems that way, because we have not been able to provide a free video hosting service that doesn't take advantage of its content creators or consumers.
No ofence but if thats your pov on the situation (a very valid one btw) you would be better of subscribing to youtube premium. You suport them directly, and dont really get the short end of the stick on mobile like evryone else that isnt paying or isnt a power user. They still colect your data incluiding browsing and watching habits, but you wont get bombarded with terrible ads and get some nice perks as a plus.
Agreed. I'll fuck around with the workarounds for as long as they work but once YouTube truly manages to make adblocking a complete headache I'll just switch to a Indian ip-address and buy a cheap premium. I've been watching tens of thousands of hours of ad-free content on that site for as long as it has existed. I can't, with a straight face, complain about the fact that they would like to make some money from it too.
I've thought about doing this, but worry about it fucking up my recommendations, which I'm actually pretty happy with. Do you know if that's an issue?
I don't know, but I doubt it's an issue. Your recommendations are probably mostly based on your watch history and not location.
Look at all the free image / video services that either never took off or went bust. Especially streaming is quite expensive and isolating only this single aspect of Youtube - cost to operate: what do people expect? Everybody wants few to no ads at all and no subscription either.
As I said, I don't want to even touch any other topic here like Youtube's (perceived) quality or their (spicy) business decisions. If you don't like the product, don't use it. There is no right to free consumption of entertainment videos. Imagine paying for a taxi like you (don't) pay for Youtube.
And if you know better, start your own platform.
My problem is that I paid for YouTube premium, for “an ad free experience” in their words. Then I immediately had an ad for paramount plus embedded under my video.
So I canceled and they can go fk themselves. I was willing to support them directly, but they straight up lied about what I was buying from them.