503
Windows Phone gets revenge on YouTube from the grave by helping users bypass its ad-blocker-blocker
(www.windowscentral.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
503 points (93.6% liked)
Technology
59169 readers
2572 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It absolutely is not worth £17 a month simply for no ads.
Then stop using it 🤷♂️ That's a personal value. I find yt+music for the family for$22 a steal.
The entitlement of you all is crazy.
Oh won’t somebody think the billion dollar company
Lololol you are directly stealing from creators. There isn't even some thin connection. They get paid on ad views and subscriptions. You are straight up taking money from creatives.
I’m under no obligation to watch advertisements. They can try to advertise to me if they want, I can avoid it however I want. Did you ever grow up with linear TV? Did you just eventually piss yourself because it would have been unfair to the commercial broadcast company to not pay attention to the ads? You mook.
You’re under no obligation to watch anything.
You are under an obligation to maximize your shareholder value as a consumer, anything against that violates the prime directive and will send bots from the matrix to simp for it. Thanks for the reminder, I don’t have to watch anything. What a revelation of information I did not know before this.
They get paid by YouTube regardless, and YouTube makes enough from data harvesting alone.
Content creators don't make as much from ads as you think. Apparently selling merch and sponsorships is where most comes from.
Who would buy stuff from a person they never heard of? How did they get popular?
Might not be brand new companies. It might be an existing company with a new product.
Imagine thinking content uploaded to a proprietary platform is still yours
What rights does yt take from the content owner?
Every single one of the content creators I watch who has said anything about ad blocking has encouraged their viewers to use ad block.
They all do in-video sponsorships and run patreons, as anyone serious about making money off video content does.
Beyond the absolutely abysmal ROI for content creators on Youtube ads, Youtube has repeatedly made sudden extreme changes to their monetization rules. They also have some of the worst support for creators when videos get arbitrarily demonetized, or when backend issues cause a creator's ad revenue to be direct deposited to someone else's account for literal years. This has lead most creators to not be able to rely on Youtube monetization as an income stream.
Again I need to emphasize that literally every single one of the content creators I watch who has said anything at all about ad blocking has encouraged their viewers to use ad block, including against the creators' own content. Most creators want Youtube competitors to rise.
Youtube has never made a profit since its inception almost 20 years ago. Google makes money hand over fist off of the user data it collects on me and others through analytics and analysis, regardless of the ads I may or may not allow it to display to me, and clearly has found Youtube a worthwhile return on investment for it to have been allowed to continue existing for as long as it has. Google does not baby any of their platforms or systems, and they regularly shutter things that seem far better business ventures.
This crackdown is not the actions of a company scrambling to make something profitable lest that thing be put under existential threat.
I am not looking to get content for nothing. I am arguing that the price has already been paid, otherwise Youtube would have been shuttered by Google many years ago.
I understand that Youtube may not exist if every single user blocked ads. Thankfully for Google, that is so unlikely to occur as to be effectively impossible. That's also not my responsibilty to look out for.
I'd argue that any singular person believing that their individual actions could make an impact on Youtube or Google needs to find better causes to spend their time on, and should work on their ego.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
when backend issues cause a creator's ad revenue to be direct deposited to someone else's account for literal years
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
With the amount of telemetry and trackable data they've collected and potentially sold, and the quality of both the service and the content being in a constant decline, I consider my malware-free access to the service to be paid for life.
Shit, considering the way they handled recent controversies, I see it as a moral obligation to hit them in the wallet.
They still show ads even when paying. So your argument is moot from the start.
I remember ages ago when you could just have youtube background play on android. Then they removed it. And now you have to pay for it.
I'm not giving them my money, especially when you consider how much data they harvest from you to sell it on.
I pay for spotify, whilst they do use trackers and sell your data. I get a metric ton more use out of it. Youtube to me, is just background noise.