553
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] irotsoma@lemmy.world 305 points 2 months ago

So if YouTube is now serving up the ads directly to me, does that mean they're finally liable for the content of those ads? Can we have them investigated for all the malware, phishing, illegal hate speech, etc.?

[-] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 75 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No, because that would be communism, and that killed 100 million people. You also think genocide is bad, aren't you? And besides of that, if there were less regulations, you could make your own video platform to challenge Google's monopoly! /s

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago

i think people may have missed that you're not serious

[-] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 31 points 1 month ago

The problem with pretending to be a dumbass on the Internet, is it's almost impossible to outdo the professionals.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Buttons@programming.dev 293 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ads will always be detectable because you cannot speed up or skip an ad like you can the rest of the video.

If they do make it so you can speed up or skip the ad sections of a video, mission accomplished.

If all else fails, I'd enjoy a plugin that just blanks the video and mutes the sound whenever an ad is playing. I'll enjoy the few seconds of quiet, and hopefully I can use that time to break out of the mentally unhealthy doom spiral that is the typical YouTube experience.

[-] Celestus@lemm.ee 86 points 1 month ago

Yep. YouTube must include a manifest with each video to tell the player what time ranges are un-skippable. Baked in ads were doomed from the beginning 🤡

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 month ago

always be detectable

Maybe with some content ID system… but you’ve just predicted their 2025 update which we might imagine would go something like this:

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

I wish I had more upvotes to give this comment cause you are so on the money.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] Nima@leminal.space 224 points 2 months ago

I'm getting tired, man. these people are truly just the shittiest individuals ever.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 104 points 2 months ago

MBAs on their way to destroy their company's relationship with their customers and cause a socioeconomic disaster (their numbers will grow by 0.01% 💪💪)

[-] plz1@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

If you don’t pay for something, you are not a customer, you are the product. If you pay for Youtube, you don’t see the ads, but you are also still their product. Lose /Lose

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] darthelmet@lemmy.world 212 points 2 months ago

Imagine all the cool stuff we could be doing if we weren’t wasting the time of hundreds of engineers figuring out how to shove ads in people’s faces.

[-] orl0pl@lemmy.world 65 points 2 months ago

This is ad driven economy and bar must go 🆙

[-] winterayars@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 months ago

"Line go up" is the animating force of the age, the critical philosophical principal around which our entire society is arranged.

Gives me a fucking headache.

[-] Isoprenoid@programming.dev 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

“Line go up” is the animating force of the ~~age~~ the rich and powerful, the critical philosophical principal around which ~~our entire society~~ their lives ~~is~~ are arranged.

I choose not to confuse their values as mine or that of my community.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (41 replies)
[-] zephr_c@lemm.ee 88 points 2 months ago

Honestly, I've kind of always wondered why they didn't just do this. It's always seemed like the obvious thing to me.

I mean, I hope it doesn't work, because screw Google, but I'm still surprised it took them this long to try it.

[-] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 83 points 2 months ago

Because it's much more expensive. What they're talking about here is basically modifying the video file as they stream it. That costs CPU/GPU cycles. Given that only about 10% of users block ads, this is only worth doing if they can get the cost down low enough that those extra ad views actually net them revenue.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

It wouldn't cost any CPU with custom software that Google can afford to write. The video is streamed by delivering blocks of data from drives where the data isn't contiguous. It's split across multiple drives on multiple servers. Video files are made of key frames and P frames and B in between the key frames. Splicing at key frames need no processing. The video server when sending the next block only needs a change to send blocks based on key frames. It can then inject ads without any CPU overhead.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] kevincox@lemmy.ml 19 points 2 months ago

This isn't how YouTube has streamed videos for many, many years.

Most video and live streams work by serving a sequence of small self-contained video files (often in the 1-5s range). Sometimes audio is also separate files (avoids duplication as you often use the same audio for all video qualities as well as enables audio-only streaming). This is done for a few reasons but primarily to allow quite seamless switching between quality levels on-the-fly.

Inserting ads in a stream like this is trivial. You just add a few ad chunks between the regular video chunks. The only real complication is that the ad needs to start at a chunk boundary. (And if you want it to be hard to detect you probably want the length of the ad to be a multiple of the regular chunk size). There is no re-encoding or other processing required at all. Just update the "playlist" (the list of chunks in the video) and the player will play the ad without knowing that it is "different" from the rest of the chunks.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Bogusmcfakester@lemmy.world 83 points 2 months ago

I'm really getting the push I need to finally get rid of the last couple Google services I still use

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] xnx@slrpnk.net 75 points 2 months ago

Imma start subscribing to the RSS feeds of torrents made for specific channels before i watch ads.

If youtube wants to make their website so hostile its easier to get better versions of youtube videos without YouTube then those games will be played.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] spyd3r@sh.itjust.works 63 points 2 months ago

[Enshittification intensifies]

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ngwoo@lemmy.world 55 points 2 months ago

If YouTube offered premium without music for a discounted price I'd probably be willing to pay for it. But I just want no ads, not a bunch of bundled stuff.

[-] DJDarren@thelemmy.club 24 points 2 months ago

This is exactly me.

I’ve been paying £5 a month by using a VPN to sign up for Premium from Ukraine. Been doing so for the past couple of years without complaint. Literally all I need from them is to fuck off the adverts. I have Apple Music for music and I’m happy with it.

Now they’ve rumbled us and will be cutting off our Premium next month.

I am fucked if I’m paying those ratfuckers £20 a month just so I can watch other people’s hard work without the adverts they force in. Fuck that noise.

So I’m now researching ways to get my subs onto Plex so I can carry on watching on my Apple TV.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] Zementid@feddit.nl 49 points 1 month ago

So, instead of iterating the ancient concept of frontal assault ads towards something less intrusive and more engaging, they go the black mirror path of force feeding ads?

Sounds about right regarding the decision makers have as much creativity as a Vogon.

Man I really hate those suit MBA circlejerk idiots in positions of power.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] capital@lemmy.world 44 points 2 months ago

Seeing as these ads will be targeted and of varying length, I wonder if a SponsorBlock-like extension with the ability to accept training data from users to help identify ads.

The Plex server application has a feature which scrubs videos and identifies intros so you can skip them like you can on Netflix. Wouldn’t it be sort of like that?

Seems like a good use of AI/ML.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 43 points 2 months ago

The fact that they can do expensive, on-the-fly video processing like this, and still make a profit, proves that video hosting costs are not an insurmountable barrier for the open-source internet. We need to make hardware accelerated peertube ubiquitous, and get creators to move over.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 44 points 2 months ago

Processing isn't the expensive part. It's bandwidth. Transferring that much data gets expensive.

[-] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 29 points 2 months ago

Storage more likely. Google owns fiber backbones and peers against the tier 1 providers directly. The over all point of 'no, it's still prohibitively expensive' stands unless you've got 20B of dark fiber in your pocket.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] dan@upvote.au 43 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The article makes it sound like a new concept, but it's a very old approach for adding ads to video streams. I mean, it's essentially how regular TV works.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] diffusive@lemmy.world 36 points 2 months ago

Well it sounds more scary than it realistically will be.

YouTube must pass to the player the metadata of where the ads start/end. Why? Because they need to be unskippable/unseekable/etc. If the metadata is there it is possible to force the seek 🤷‍♂️

Just matter of time

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] GhiLA@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 month ago

Oh well.

YouTube can be past-tense. There's a million places to post a video these days. Spill out some whiskey and read a book. Fuck em.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] glitchdx@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago

The arms race continues.

[-] bokherif@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Only if premium did not have ads. They show you ad videos as if they’re part of your “recommendations”. They also allow creators to get sponsorships within videos. So even the premium experience isn’t really ad-free and they tout that shit everywhere.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TheAmishMan@lemmy.world 21 points 2 months ago

On my phone I use youtube revanced and adguard dns, kiwi browser with ublock origin. On my PC I use just ublock origin. So far** I havent run into issues

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FeelThePower@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I've been getting around it by setting my frontend to use an embed request, that way YouTube thinks it's a third party embed and the ad injection doesn't work. I've also in the past geospoofed to Russia and that works to block ads too.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
553 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

59559 readers
2157 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