YouTube warns it might make your viewing experience worse if you don't turn off your ad-blocker
YouTube has been cracking down on people using ad blockers. Now, a spokesperson says that using ad blockers could lead to "suboptimal viewing."
You're viewing a single thread.
Sorry Google.
I'm gonna use YouTube ad free or I won't use it.
And I ain't gonna pay for it.
Pretty sure that they are fine with that, they are actively trying to get rid of you.
Not in the slightest. They want to have their cake and eat it, meaning they want you on the platform but using it their way. Why else would they put so much effort into this fools errand of subverting ad blockers?
Ding ding ding. Itâs an unpopular opinion, but itâs the harsh truth. This is akin to a super high maintenance Karen going âIâm never going to shop here againâ even though she immediately returns everything she purchases. The company isnât making any profit off of her, (in fact theyâre losing money because she demands employeesâ attention whenever sheâs shopping) so a sensible managerâs response should be âokay, weâre glad to see you go. Please donât come back.â
YouTube doesnât want the users who block ads and refuse to pay. Those users are a net drain on the system. Lemmy likes to yell about FOSS, and there is a lot to love about that⌠But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesnât really mean âFreeâ. It means âFree to the end userâ. Someone had to devote time and resources to building and hosting that âfreeâ thing. The fact that theyâre willing to share their effort is great! But it canât be the expectation.
As someone who does a lot of freelance work, Iâll say the same thing that I say to clients when they ask me to work for free because of the exposure: Exposure is what people die of when they canât pay their rent. Iâm not saying YouTube is going to go bankrupt because of these users, but the users canât reasonably expect YouTube to continue to pay for/accommodate them.
Free in FOSS means free as in freedom not free as in beer.
But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesnât really mean âFreeâ. It means âFree to the end userâ.
The F in FOSS does NOT mean gratis. I absolutely hate that we decided to call it Free. There have been attempts at saying another word like libre (aka FLOSS) but those haven't worked out.
I don't agree with the FSF on a lot, but their definition of free software is as follows:
âFree softwareâ means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, âfree softwareâ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of âfreeâ as in âfree speech,â not as in âfree beer.â We sometimes call it âlibre software,â borrowing the French or Spanish word for âfreeâ as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.
You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
In other words software can be paid and still be FOSS. In fact, I want to see MORE paid software that's FOSS.
Gratis software only works in very rare cases, when an entity other than the user of the software pays for it, but that is NOT the case with FOSS.
I want more FOSS software that is monetized. Charging for FOSS software is not only permissible but desirable. This model ensures that developers are compensated for their skilled labor, fostering an environment where innovation is rewarded. It's about creating a sustainable ecosystem where the values of open-source are upheld without sacrificing the financial viability of the developers.
When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS â the liberty to run, modify, and share â while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.
Paid FOSS software also opens doors to more professional and polished products. When developers are remunerated, there's a greater incentive to maintain, improve, and support software. This, in turn, encourages wider adoption, as users are more likely to rely on software that is regularly updated and supported.
Moreover, a paid FOSS model disrupts the surveillance capitalism model. It negates the need for monetizing user data, as the revenue comes directly from the users in exchange for the software. This aligns perfectly with the principles of respecting user privacy and data ownership.
I WANT to pay for FOSS software that respects my rights and freedoms. The payment becomes an investment in a world where software is not just a tool, but a statement of principles. It's a declaration that I support an ecosystem where the power and control lie with the users, not in the hands of a few large corporations.
By paying for FOSS, we're contributing to a marketplace that values ethical practices over profit maximization. We're fostering a space where software developers don't have to resort to underhanded tactics like data mining or invasive advertising to make a living. Instead, they can focus on creating quality, user-respecting software.
This isn't to say that all FOSS should come with a price tag. There will always be a place for gratis FOSS, especially in educational and non-profit sectors, tho in such cases developers should strive to ask for donations. But for the software that powers businesses and our daily lives, a paid model is more sustainable and ethical.
The beauty of this approach is its alignment with the principles of free-market capitalism. It's a voluntary exchange where value is given and received. Users pay for the freedom, quality, and respect that FOSS offers, while developers are compensated for their ingenuity and hard work.
A nice example of this is Ardour: A DAW that's free in the sense that the source code is GPL, but the prebuilt official binaries have to be paid for.
When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS â the liberty to run, modify, and share â while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.
I never understood how these two concepts can coexist.
Lets say you made something FOSS and sold it to one person. Can't that person just... redistribute it for free? Which kinda makes you trying to make a living out of selling it much much more difficult or downright impossible?
Of course, people can be dishonest, but nothing stops the same from happening with proprietary software. Cracks do and will always exist. As Louis Rossmann aptly put it, "If you choose to steal paid FOSS software nobody is stopping you, that's between you and your God."
While it's technically feasible for a purchaser to redistribute FOSS software, this act doesn't negate the continuous value a developer can offer. Think of it akin to a chef in an open kitchen; the recipe may be visible to all, but the chef's expertise in crafting and adapting the dish, as well as the dining experience provided, is what customers pay for.
In the world of proprietary software, the illusion of control is often just that â an illusion. Despite the efforts to safeguard against unauthorized distribution such as DRM, software licenses, verification servers, etc. piracy remains a prevalent issue. The key difference is that FOSS is upfront about this reality, building its model on transparency and trust rather than control.
Morally speaking, the FOSS model respects user freedom and fosters a community built on mutual respect and collaboration. It acknowledges the possibility of misuse but chooses to focus on positive engagement and the creation of value that extends beyond mere code. In this way, FOSS aligns more closely with the principles of intellectual freedom and individual empowerment, encouraging a market where ideas and innovations are shared and improved upon collectively, rather than hoarded for profit.
the recipe may be visible to all, but the chefâs expertise in crafting and adapting the dish, as well as the dining experience provided, is what customers pay for.
I mean, you cant ctrl+c ctrl+v the dish. That's the difference. If anyone could ctrl+c ctrl+v meals I think most restaurants would go bankrupt. Right?
I'm not so sure about that.
I shipped several android apps that were GPL licensed and FOSS but had in-app paid options. You could also download a fully unlocked version from f-droid. They were quite profitable and the statistics were surprising. Turns out people are willing to pay for good software
The assertion that non-paying customers do not provide value to a business is patently and demonstrably false. Especially in a free market.
A platform like YouTube benefits from non-paying customers because these customers still drive engagement and help solidify market share.
Non-paying customers still consume sponsor spots, which benefits creators, keeping creators on YouTube and therefore still benefitting YouTube.
Non-paying customers will promote YouTube just by using it, even for free, and create the impression that YouTube is the only game in town, instead of looking for and promoting alternatives.
Having a non-paying customer on your platform is in most ways better than having that customer become a paying customer on a competing platform.
The only time this dynamic no longer holds true is if YouTube believes their position is so entrenched that there is no more competition and they can squeeze the users all they want (end game enshitification).
The only time this dynamic no longer holds true is if YouTube believes their position is so entrenched that there is no more competition and they can squeeze the users all they want (end game enshitification).
Uuuhhh... Pretty sure that's where we're on now soooo....
I don't think that's entirely true. Or at least not in the longer term view of it. YT isn't just some random store that doesn't want to deal with an unruly customer. It's a big tech monopoly platform. Like the other tech giants, their strategy has always hinged on becoming the only game in town. And they predictably use the same tactics monopolies have been using for the past century:
Ad block users aren't valueless to YT, or at least they weren't. They were a portion of those viewers and commenters that contributed to YT becoming THE video social media site. They comment, share videos around, maybe even contribute directly to creators to allow them to keep making YT video. You maybe lose a out on a couple cents from the lost ad views for each one of them, but the value of the network effect gained by keeping them around this long far outweighs that loss.
EDIT: Oh and how could I forget: They get data from you. Sure, they can't directly sell ads for you off that data, but the more data they have in general, the better they are able to make predictions about other similar users, which is valuable.
They're doing this now because they can. They no longer have meaningful competition to kill off. The few that kinda cross into their market are also massive tech platform monopolies that are currently engaged in the exact same thing. They can't expand their customer base anymore, so now they're extracting more money from the captive audience they have.
And it's not just adblock users they're increasing the "price" for. YT has added an insane number of ads to their videos and increased the price of YT Premium. If adblockers died tomorrow, they wouldn't be like "What a relief, now that we've gotten rid of the freeloaders, we can finally lower our prices for everyone since they aren't bearing the burden of the non-payers." They just get to tighten the screws even further because they would have gained an even more dominant position over their users.
In a fairer world, we'd all pay a reasonable amount for the things we use or move on to an alternative if we'd rather not. But we don't live in that world. We live in capitalist hell world where everything is a monopoly and the government is so captured by those corporate interests that they basically never enforce even the meager anti-trust laws we do have.
this is a salient point sure, but you are perfectly capable of wording it in a way that doesn't also suck off a shitty malignant corporation. why the fuck would you sympathize with google? they have trillions of dollars, it is literally not at all comparable to your work.
thank you for being so mature and telling us peons the Real Mature Truths. your bravery is commendable.
Well said. Their business model is shit.
They already make money off of us, what the fuck are you talking about?
You missed my point. If youâre blocking ads/trackers, and refusing to pay for premium? Then they arenât making money off of you. Youâre consuming their resources for free. Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is thatâs how the website makes money. So when you eliminate those, you eliminate any reason for them to pander to your wants. The only potential benefit to keeping you around would be to help drive engagement. But since theyâve run all the competition out of business, they donât need to worry about that because they donât need engagement from the 1% of users who still try to block ads.
Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is thatâs how the website makes money
It has nothing to do with feelings. The data they track has a value. Youâre claiming they âarenât making money off of youâ. They are.
Again, you missed my point. If youâre blocking those ads and trackers, they have no data from you and therefore you have no value to them.
If youâre blocking those ads and trackers, they have no data from you
Letâs pause and pretend thatâs true.
âŚ.Ahhh. đ if only.
you're wrong, actually. Google sells ads, not data. They USE data to target ads which is where the big bucks are. If you block ads, all the data in the world wouldn't allow them to profit. So by blocking ads you are preventing Google from collecting any revenue from your participation
I didnât say they sell data I said that the data they track has a value. Try again
well it doesn't have any value if it can't be sold or used
We can agree to disagree about this. I donât think my obligation is to maximize my ARPU for Google. And given how malignant they are itâs now my mission to maliciously minimize my value to them. Maybe we are just on different wavelengths. Enjoy your Google services.
On I 100% agree with you here. But here's my (and I think a lot of people's) logic:
It's slightly different in the case of YouTube. The shop isn't putting Karen (and everyone else) under a microscope the second she walks into the store, and using that data to tailor what she sees in their other branches so she's more likely to buy. They're not creating what's effectively a gigantic influence market out of the data, and I don't think you are doing that to your clients either (although to be honest, I'd be pretty impressed if you were).
YouTube is free because "we are the product". They're harvesting our data whether we block ads, skip ads, watch ads, or pay for premium (as far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong). It may not be profitable on its own but it sure as hell is bringing value to Google's other services. All the while, it's actively getting worse for end users (more and more ads, no more dislikes, not respecting video quality choices as well as it used to, hiding quality settings behind obtuse menus on mobile, no home page without watch history...)
Ultimately, "line no go up big like last year grug mad" is what matters to Google's shareholders and what ultimately drives their decisions. I firmly believe that we'd still be having this conversation if YouTube somehow making a profit with ad blockers on, so fuck em.
If that were true they'd have restricted YouTube to logged in people.
What? They are trying to get rid of people with ad-blockers, not random by-passers that view 5/5 ads.
Could you explain that? Don't views or engagements count if you're not logged in?
I mean if they really didn't care about random visitors and cared more about making people watch ads. There's a very simple way to accomplish that, they only let you watch if you're logged in, and give your account a temp ban if you're blocking ads. But since they're not doing that they obviously see some value in anonymous visitors.
I'm thinking anonymous visitors are harder to track, and ad-watching farms are probably a thing too, I imagine.
I'm guessing the value is simply a semblance of goodwill, to not be as transparent about their ad-watching mania. Maybe?
Does that mean I should pull all my content?
No.
Im pretty sure they are fine with free riders when they are not too many.
Asking genuinely, if you were in charge of YouTube, and you don't think anyone should pay for YouTube, and you don't think you should run ads, how exactly would you go about paying for the massive amount of engineers and infrastructure needed to keep the lights on?
For me personally, I would rather pay for a service than with my time via ads.
That said, the services provided these days are unreliable, gatekept, metered and not enjoyable. Why should I pay for shitty service?
Therefore Iâm only left with one option and my wellies are strapped tight! đŤĄ
I...honestly don't think you're particularly honest about this.
Mainly because Youtube red exists and it's main sell is removing ads, but we already know the answer to that. (Most people don't actually want to buy the service)
And it's not like it's shitty service. It's Youtube without ads.
I donât need music, I just want ad free YouTube. There isnât an option for users like me.
yt-dlp A bit of an inconvenience, but if it comes to having to sit through ads to see it on YT, I will download the video to prevent that. I already archive a couple of channels I love.
...?
Just use the ad free youtube...and don't use the music section?
That's what I do 90% of the time....
The price reflects including the music service whether you want it or not.
How much do you really think they would take off of the price tag if you didn't have music? most similar subs are within the same price range....
I always figured youtube music only existed to make the sub more incentivizing. It probably doesn't even cost them anything they aren't already spedning on youtube.
It needs to be about half the price, if not less tbh. At its current price itâs rivaling netlflix, paramount, etc which are full studioâs producing the content, not just hosting it.
Well, if YouTube were truly so terrible that you think it offers no real value, you wouldn't use it at all. If you yourself don't use it, that's all well and good, but if you do still use it anyway but block ads, then you're admitting that it offers some amount of actual value while refusing to pay for it. In that case, it's hardly unreasonable for YouTube to decide to not take on the cost of offering the service to those that aren't going to pay for it. You'd probably be more than a little annoyed if your boss told you that you'll be working extra hours for free.
Thereâs nothing inherently valuable to YouTube other than the fact that itâs the default video hosting website because it got there first. You can find other similar websites that provide video hosting that is equivalent, just without the massive audience YouTube has. Keep in mind your argument only works for G rated content because anything that is slightly controversial, even history based content, gets demonetized and thereâs an entire other website called patreon that gained popularity because YouTube wasnât paying its content creators for their work.
YouTube has lots of options for getting people to pay for their content. If they opt to pursue ad revenue they need to accept that a subset of their audience will use 3rd party apps to get around that. Most people donât have ad blockers so itâs really only people smart enough to download the plugins. To me this is akin to Reddit pissing in the face of their users for the sake of maximizing profits. I get why theyâre doing it, but for every trick they employ to get around ad blockers someone will come up with a workaround and Iâll just download that plugin each time.
@BraveSirZaphod this is pretty much what I was going to respond to you with
I understand people need to be paid, Iâm just not willing to pay in my time. The paid service is also questionable as well.
I rediscovered this guy very recently, he talks a lot about the same points Iâve been making and I think he does it in a pretty fair way, Iâm curious what your thoughts are (anyone feel free to jump in of course)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?si=bZLNupgMEnn_uWDS
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
YouTube is okay. I'll watch it if it's free or very cheap. I won't watch ads for it.
And they may decide in kind that they don't want to offer a service to you for free.
They've already decided that. If they make it too difficult to watch it without ads then I'll stop watching. No skin off my nose.
patreon
This is an interesting perspective. Many people are willing to put in time and effort to get around restrictions on adblockers, but not willing to give up time to ads or give up money to avoid ads.
I think if and when adblockers are no longer an option, many who fall in this category would be pushed into the paying category, while others would be pushed into grumpily watching ads.
The minority would go elsewhere to find other entertainment at an acceptable price.
I mean, I'm a happy, paying subscriber to Nebula. Any content where I have a choice to watch it there, I do. It's stupidly cheap, too. Usually you can find a promo to get it for under $20/yr.
But I am also not pretending that Google owes me free & ad-free YouTube on my terms. They don't. Nor do the creators owe me uploading their videos to my platform of choice. I'd prefer both these things to be true, but I at least can understand that it is not reasonable. YouTube, frankly, is probably the ONLY killer product I couldn't do without made by Google, other than some open source software.
People should pirate all they want. I don't really give a fuck. I don't consider it some great moral evil. But pirating from YouTube is not some symbolic, ethical stand for your values. If you really think what they're doing is bad, stop using the service and pressure the YouTubers to upload elsewhere (which they pretty much ALL could do without consequences from Google). The entire platform only exists because of advertising. Period. If you hate ads as much as I do, pay for the ad-free versions.
I think if and when adblockers are no longer an option, many who fall in this category would be pushed into the paying category, while others would be pushed into grumpily watching ads.
Given the success of Netflix's ban on password sharing, I think you're right here. Most people really don't care about this nearly as much as the average tech enthusiast.
https://infosec.pub/comment/4467335
Sorry I have no idea how to @ people yet, not sure itâs implemented in this app yet
But YouTube Premium is incredibly reliable, unlimited, famously has very little content moderation, and is full of enjoyable content? (i.e., all of YouTube)
I think you just don't want to pay.
I don't want to pay what they're asking no.
if people can get things for free
theyâre going to get things for free
Mmm not the whole truth, and that is why they get away with it:
https://youtu.be/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?si=bZLNupgMEnn_uWDS
Netflix does similar things it would seem
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/4Q3ZXQZZlcE?si=bZLNupgMEnn_uWDS
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What other video platforms does Louis Rossmann upload his stuff to, by the way?
He does, you know. But I notice you aren't watching him there.
Not sure I use a proxy application to watch YouTube videos
So you could be using and supporting alternate platforms, but YouTube is so valuable to you that you don't bother.
Who said I donât? Why canât I use both?
Youâre trying to fabricate a point here, and I just donât think it fits me
I don't believe you do because you would've linked to it instead of YouTube. You claim to hate that business, yet you direct people to engage on it.
You're getting on a moral high horse about how it's fair and right to pirate from YouTube because of their bad behavior, yet when given a free alternative platform to view the videos from a creator you respect enough to link, you don't. You go to YouTube.
Let's give an example:
I think you underestimate how much pirates and the opposition truly hate google and their practices and the lengths they will go to in order to get the content they want.
Apparently not very hard at all, since there was a totally Google-free way to get the content you want that supports the creator even better and is free and yet here you are not using it.
I Square peg doesnât fit the round hole.
Iâm done arguing with you about MY OWN viewpoint which I think everyone else very clearly understands.
Talk about being on a high horse LMAO the irony.
Honestly?
Not my monkeys, not my circus.
I don't care what YouTube wants to do or how they do it, they need viewers and if they can't figure out how to keep em, ah well. They gotta create a service that caters to my behavior, not the other way around.
Thatâs a flippant response when you were asked specifically to pretend they were your monkeys.
That's true!
Well, actually, they have to create a service that caters to people who bring them revenue. If that isn't you, they don't have to, and actively shouldn't, cater to you at all.
You're just saying "I don't have an actual answer" in a roundabout way.
Well, I don't, but it isn't my problem.
Google makes enough money as is, I don't really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I'll do other things with my time.
I don't really care about Google's wellbeing. I pay directly to the content creators I like and I hate seeing ads anywhere in my life and I'm willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.
If they say that the marketing data they scrape from user activity isn't enough for em, well, sucks to suck I guess.
For someone who doesn't care and has no viable responses to the questions here, you sure do have a lot to say.
It's true, I'm very passionate about never viewing any advertisements!
I donât really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. Iâll do other things with my time.
Alternatively, they'll take steps towards a more viable business model, and you'll also find other things to do with your time.
Iâm willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.
You can zap all ads forever with a few minutes and a credit card, if you're willing.
That's the thing with ads. They're a thorn in my side. That Google puts there.
If you were charging me to remove the thorns you put in my side, I'd be belligerent towards you. And I ain't gonna give ya money.
Is YouTube running at a loss, anyway? Or is Google just trying to squeeze more money outta its products? Maybe they should be content with the profits they got. Some quick searching says it generates somewhere in the realm of $29,000,000,000 in revenue annually. I imagine it's likely they can afford to not be so damn greedy.
We have no idea if YouTube operates at a loss or is profitable. Google won't say. Revenue really tells you very little when you look at what it takes to run something like YouTube. It's a huge reason why an open competitor is so hard to make work.
The reason I don't bring them revenue is because they continue to make the experience worse. Paying isn't going to make that stop, it's just going to temporarily shift the bar a little; the bar is however still moving towards a shittier experience for all.
Why would I look at this and go "Yes, I'll pay!" There are a lot of services I would genuinely pay for if I didn't have an impending dread that the service is just about to get worse again regardless of if I pay or not. It's not like paying is a magic bullet, either, it comes with a ton of different issues like privacy. They still sell your soul to advertisers if you pay them.
Ultimately, they have no obligation to provide you something of value for free, and given that you do apparently use YouTube, they are objectively providing you something of value. They're completely within their rights to not do that.
I'll gloss over that you either missed my point or ignored it; I don't use YouTube because it's too shit, actually.
I don't pay for any Google services, not that I'm using any with any consistency anymore, for the same reason that I don't use them anymore. Google cannot be trusted to provide a good service, paying costumer or not. If you punish me for using the free product, why would I ever trust you? Steam doesn't slap me across the face at every chance it gets when I don't spend money on their store for a long period of time, yet I have no issue paying for the games I do want to play despite piracy being completely risk-free by comparison.
That goes both ways. I can stop providing youtube with free content.
If you aren't getting paid for your content, they'd probably be glad to not have to host it anymore. Anyone with content where it's worth them hosting it is getting paid.
I paid for Lynda.com, and it could have easily taken in more business if YouTube wasn't working so hard for Google ads. There are a lot of paid (and free) services that suffer because of YouTubes ad-money business model.
Netflix could use the extra business. There are plenty of services failing to thrive while YouTube exists. Peertube would be wide open if YouTube went the way of most of Google's stable of apps. PeerTube is wide open even if YouTube doesn't go away anyway.
People genuinely hate ads. It's a high degree of enshitification. YouTube could divide into paid content and free content in a simple Freemium model.
Or, add third tier with ads, which any user can opt out of in the same way contributers can. I'd be happy to click subscribe on an ad free experience with less content available to me.
Or, add an option for a couple of free tier items per month, week, or day. Like Medium's business model.
It's not hard to stop sucking!
well its not my problem
In 2022, Youtube was getting $14 ARPU for free users (from ads) and $120 ARPU for premium users. With premium users contributing so much more to their bottom line, one would think they would strive to keep those users subscribed, but instead YouTube started raising prices and even stopped honoring the grandfathered price points their long term subscribers (like myself) were at. I would have kept paying for my family subscription indefinitely at that price point - which is still several times higher than the revenue they would get from me as an ad-consuming customer - but they opted to not allow that, so they lost all the revenue theyâd been getting from me entirely.
Youtube specific stats are hard to find, but Alphabet is one of the most profitable companies worldwide, with a profit of just under $80 billion in 2022, so your question is honestly irrelevant. The status quo would have been more than enough to keep the lights on. This isnât about making ends meet; itâs about getting as much profit as they can.
Even so, the person you replied to didnât say YouTube shouldnât run ads or charge for a subscription. They were talking about themselves and their willingness to watch ads or subscribe.
And because enough people arenât like that person or like me, YouTube is going to continue to grow their revenue and their user base - for now, at least.
I don't mind paying for YouTube content. I do mind their data harvesting, however. Figured out that my life isn't diminished at all without Youtube.
You think it costs $30b a year to run YouTube?
There's a middleground between reckless profiteering and not making any money at all. And yet YouTube discontinued their $5 tier. But no, it's the kids who are out of touch.
Iâm perfectly fine if commercial platforms like YouTube go out of business. This will create space for smaller platforms run by users as a hobby instead of a business, which I think would lead to a healthier media ecosystem. Additionally, advertising is not a healthy activity for society. Spending resources to manipulate people is not really beneficial to humanity as a whole. If it were up to me, it would be banned.
Subsidise it with your other services
Why would they? It's not like it's going to be bringing customers to their other services and Google isn't a charity.
Theyâre not a charity, theyâre a monopoly. So fuck them I donât care how people circumvent their increasingly shitty service
"Just don't worry about revenue at all" is the best kind of secret genius business strategy that I come to Lemmy for.
From a financial standpoint, that doesnât make any sense though. Why would you continue to run a service that is a net drain on the rest of your business? Unless it can offer some meaningful, tangible benefit to the company, why continue to operate it at all? If a service needs to be subsidized to survive, why does it need to survive?
Google has basically used it to increase their tracking capabilities across the web. They know when you visit any site with an embedded YouTube video. But thatâs only possible because theyâre already a massive company. And itâs not reasonable to expect them to continue subsidizing it out of the goodness of their hearts. After all, if youâre willing to ask them to subsidize it, why arenât you willing to help by paying for premium? Itâs easy to say âjust subsidize itâ when itâs not your money.
To be clear, I donât pay for premium and probably never will. But this thread has a lot of emotionally charged âbecause I want itâ responses, which arenât really grounded in reality. YouTube has operated at a loss for a decade, and only continued to operate because it had the backing of a tech giant. But if that tech giant wants to stop subsidizing the site and finally make the site profitable, thatâs their prerogative. Yes, itâs the final step in the enshittification process. Yes, it means free users will have a worse experience. But ultimately, the company isnât required to care about the free users.
If YouTube operates at a loss and they decide to ditch their service its their problem, not mine. I'm not here to save google
Not OP, but I personally would like to see a variety of options for how I see ads. Not what ads I see, but how they're delivered. I imagine several less intrusive options and the option to continue ads as they are now. I would need two or three less intrusive options combined to cover my viewing, or I could take only the current annoying interrupting ads on their own.
On second thought, YouTube would just end up turning on all options and stopping playback for anyone who finds the options list.
by being owned by google? treating users with respect and running graceful and non-invasive ads? (maybe still image banner ads only? ratchet up the tension on the advertiser ghouls, not the end users?) having something akin to a patreon? simply eating the cost because it's a public service? (not to mention the public service of draining the bank accounts of VC/investor/silicon valley vampires)
yeah, them needing the money (??) or whatever is one thing, but this arrogant fucking attitude lately is so repugnant. set up a patreon, don't fucking fight against your users like this. it's not exactly real TV or oxygen, it's fucking youtube. it's 90% garbage anyway
That's fine, but that's why Google is doing this. They need people who won't watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs. I mean what business survives with zero income? The question google is asking isn't whether or not some people will stop using it, the question their asking is will enough of them stop for them to generate income.
If Google can pay shitloads of money to people through ad revenue, then they can also make a profit off of the platform. Claiming they make no income is just complete bullshit.
You think Google pays "shitloads for ad revenue to creators"? Is that why it's so rare for major creators to rely on sponsorship deals to be their primary stable income?
There had been enough leaks over the last 10-15 years of some of their income from YT to suggest that they indeed get paid very well, way more than many working class people. They aren't relying on sponsorship, they just also love to take it. And hell, there's big content creators that get paid enough to have several people working for them in return.
So then they need to do whatever they can to stop ad block. Because Google pays shit loads of money due to ad revenue. I'm not sure how your logic disagrees with anything I said.
It's not Google paying that, it's the advertisers paying it. Google isn't just giving away their money.
...yes, so google desperately needs those advertisers to advertise. And if they stop, their content stops existing. So yeah Google has to stop ad block. Otherwise who's going to make anything for YouTube?
*Edit as you said
Google isnât just giving away their money.
So they need advertisers to give out that money or they have no one posting videos.
Unless you think Google will just start giving out money.
They aren't going to stop. lol
I'm sorry but your "arguments" become more and more nonsensical.
The money doesn't come from Youtube. They're not a big company because of youtube. They bought youtube.
I'm well aware that they bought YT.
They need people who wonât watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs.
This assumes that the biggest cost to Youtube is serving the content, not storing the content. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's a valid question because if storage is the larger cost, then it doesn't matter how many visitors visit the site, Youtube is still warehousing all that content. By the way, in that scenario, it's actually better for Youtube to keep as many viewers on the site as possible, adblockers or not, because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.
I mean what business survives with zero income?
Yeah, I don't care enough to simp for a company that has enough money to start off with a losing strategy to begin with of burn money to kill competition then is surprised that they can't easily revert back the strategy that "won" them the market dominance in the market dominance in the first place.
And YouTube is one of many services that exist to try and convince people to make a Google account anyways. Without YouTube that's one less reason to make an account with other email providers around and less of a reason for Apple users which is growing in dominance.
because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.
How does that actually work when the advertisers know people aren't going to see the ad?
I think for a while, their strategy to ignore adblockers worked just fine. User counts were rising, ad payouts could be and would be cut, ads could be and would be placed in different parts of the video, videos that weren't monetized were getting ads thrown in just to make Youtube/Google/Adsense money. YT was pulling lots of levers to keep the value of advertising on the platform high.
That is, until Adpocalypse. My theory is, after this point, advertisers began to question how many more levers could be pulled until they addressed the elephant in the room, an elephant that was getting larger and larger: the adblockers. Let's be fair to Google (ugh), it would be much much easier to pull all those levers, than to tackle the technical challenge of stopping client-side software from running on their website. Once interest rates rose, and advertiser pressure reached it's current peak, Google started taking anti-adblocker actions: Manifest V3 to kill ublock on Chrome, Youtube's current system, etc.
Actually the other person who tried to disagree with me made a great point for my argument.
Youtube needs content creators and pays them through advertising. If advertising stopped, there would be no content creators.
So regardless of if it's storage or bandwidth, they absolutely need to stop ad block. Otherwise no one will make content for youtube.
I think there's some truth to that, but in my admittedly "outside-looking-in" experience, most full-time content creators have other means of raising money to operate: Patreon, merchandise, Twitch subscriptions, YT Membership, video sponsorships, etc. So I don't think the total loss of advertising would lead to the total loss of content creators. You'd lose some, but others would survive. People like making content even when there's no profit motive at all, it's just less feasible to do it at an industrial scale if you don't have more solid financial banking.
Consider Twitch subscriptions. You pay $5 to a streamer, you never see ads on their stream. No ads doesn't mean no streamer. Likewise, streamer still streams even if you don't subscribe, you just see the ads. As a business model, this is a little neater, tidier, than Google's. On a technical level, it's also better defended against adblockers since ads are injected into the stream, they're not a separate stream you can just block.
Yes they "need" to stop adblock, but for the advertisers, not for the content creators.
What you're saying is true, but misses the point. Yes, larger content creators can get sources of income besides advertising. However, the whole point of youtube is to let anyone big or small get started. Small creators can't get started if they don't have a source of income. So that's where the advertising comes in.
In a sense, twitch builds upon the success of youtube. They took large creators who could get the $5 subscriptions on to their platform. But this only increased the need for youtube to court advertisers.
In a world without advertisers paying content creators, our options would be severely limited. We want small upstarts and cutting off their source of income is a terrible idea.
Unfortunately, our world requires the necessity evil of youtube doing whatever it can to stop ad blocker. No matter how nice it is. And if you as a user are satisficed with the limited content from large creators, as you said, there's always twitch.
