i agree, its about choice. no one should be complaining about what google is doing.
if we dont like it, we should choose a different product.
Comment on YouTube's ‘War’ on Adblockers Shows How Google Controls the Internet
Norgur@kbin.social 1 year ago
As much as I'm against Google: why are they imthe bad guys in this specific instance? They are in many other insurances, absolutely. But here, they dare to block a service that legitimately costs a ton of money from being used without them making anythinnin return. That's not the usual evil corp BS they pull. That's rather reasonable if you ask me. Let's not exhaust ourselves in that and focus on the real Bullshit they try to pull like their web manifest ad nightmare!
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 year ago
Talaraine@kbin.social 1 year ago
When a corporation is willing to lose billions of dollars to capture an audience, effectively locking out any competition, and then counters any possible avenue to blocking their monopolistic stance, your first statement shouldn't be about choice, because there isn't one.
originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 1 year ago
i choose not to utilize youtube in any capacity. my problem here is solved.
Szymon@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
So which free streaming service allowing for profit sharing on ad revenue which has essentially become the only name brand in the industry have you chosen to move to?
Or is your choice that you have to go without something you want because you disagree with the one single service offering it? Oh by the way, that company got that way through anti competitive practices to make sure that only they were able to operate this type of service.
Norgur@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yet, by AdBlocking them, you are doing fuck all against their "monopolistic stance". You are strengthening their monopoly all the same. And to be clear: I don't want to blame here. Block YouTube ads, I'm doing that too. I'm more irritated by how it's somehow spun as evil that YouTube dares to want money for a service they provide.
If Google had not shut down competition by outcompeting them, do you think those competitors would be free? If not, your argument is besides the point all together.
Zorque@kbin.social 1 year ago
One can be the "bad guy" without being outright evil. Their advertising tactics are heinous and exploitative, and their revenue sharing with the people actually making their content is tricky to exploit without utilizing the same shitty practices Google uses.
This is also about a relatively minor amount of users. Yes, most people on the fediverse are probably going to be running ad-blockers... but that's an incredibly small amount of people. This whole thing is about squeezing a few extra ounces of blood from "their" stone. Not a righteous battle against a foul mass who are scandalously stealing from hard working Google employees.
amio@kbin.social 1 year ago
Yeah, why don't the users just pick a better option in this monopoly.
yukichigai@kbin.social 1 year ago
Because this isn't just about "making anything in return" any more than neo-Nazis are booted from platforms "just for having different opinions." More people are using adblockers on YouTube because YouTube isn't simply displaying commercial advertisements, they're pushing "ads" for scams, malware, and all manner of heinous and/or sketchy content. Even separate of that, the frequency of ads and the presence of minutes-long ads you need to manually skip have made watching content difficult and unpleasant, if not unworkable. Adblocker usage is as much about restoring functionality to the site as anything.
All of these issues have been raised with YouTube, but rather than address the complaints by adjusting how ads are selected and served they've decided the only solution is for you to pay them monthly, not just a few bucks but as much as (or more than) the major video streaming services. All of this for content they do not make, at a price point far beyond what they need to be profitable. It's greed for the sake of greed, pure and simple.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
If they are so annoying, don’t watch at all? Go outside, read a book, watch Jellyfin/Plex.
Plenty of activities to substitute YT time.
Nougat@kbin.social 1 year ago
YouTube was originally free, and without video ads. It remained so for some time after Google bought it. They can operate YouTube without video ads at all.
wildn0x@lemmy.world 1 year ago
YouTube lived off venture capital, search sponsorships, and content hosting. Venture capital is long dried up. Search sponsorships are just advertisements but clogging your searches. Content hosting isn’t really needed anymore since every large media company has their own streaming platform. Lot has changed since 2006.
Norgur@kbin.social 1 year ago
What?! Have you checked how big a 4k video is lately? Where do you suppose the money for that should come from?
Nougat@kbin.social 1 year ago
Who decided to provide 4K video? (Hint: it wasn't me.)
ExcursionInversion@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Good thing people didn’t freak out when they tested putting 4k videos behind membership
TrenchcoatFullofBats@belfry.rip 1 year ago
1080p did nothing wrong
un_owen@lemmy.world 1 year ago
That’s not the usual evil corp BS they pull.
Yes it is. Then why do they force you to pay for YT Music if all you want is an ad free experience? I tell you why: people will come to the realization that it is stupid to pay for two music streaming services at the same time, so they will cancel their Spotify subscription. It will be extremely hard for other services to stay competitive. It’s no longer enough that their app is perhaps slightly better, or that their algorithm is better, no one will pay the extra 11 € per month for just that. So eventually, these competing music streaming services will die (maybe with the exception of Apple Music and Amazon Music). Once YouTube has the monopoly on the music streaming market, they can raise the prices again.
djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 year ago
A lot of people have become entitled to the idea of the “free internet.” In some cases, it’s understandable, like for social media where the platform is doing very little work and nearly all the value is coming from the users. I think especially in Youtube’s case, people are squinting and looking at it like a social media. They wonder why Youtube’s taking such a big cut when they think the content creators are the ones providing the value.
The issue here is that the complexities of video hosting, especially at the speed and quality Youtube provides, requires a ludicrous amount of effort and money. Youtube is providing a platform that is nearly unthinkable, something I consider to rival the entire television broadcasting sphere. The idea that such a colossal undertaking could be achieved without requiring revenue generation is simply naïve, and it’s incredible to think that a free version is even offered at all. Nobody ever really thinks about that though, they just look at it as another platform like Facebook or Reddit, and think a lazy megacorp is stuffing their pockets for nothing.
Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
You can see how hard they optimized by watching a very old video you uploaded yourself.
Exanple of mine:
I uploaded 3 videos some time (2x 9 years and 1x 6 years) ago with about 1min of runtime each.
They do not get clicked much.
Timing it, it took Google about 3 seconds to view it the best available resolution.
Only 3 seconds is insane if one remembers how long a drive needs to just spin up from standby. And that is not even with a cached video.
Now I wanna see how long it would take a competitor to achieve the same performance.
I remember some time ago when YT took about 10-15sec to do the same task. They heavily improved their performance. Even for low performance content.
Sad that some are so entitled.