YouTube isn’t happy you’re using ad blockers — and it’s doing something about it::undefined

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m torn because fuck ads, but also YouTube is probably the most expensive website on earth to run (just the website itself, obviously a shipping company with a website will cost more.) Video is just obscenely expensive to store and they let free accounts upload 4k and keep it private.

    I honestly don’t know the solution here because YouTube being free is amazing, but they’ve literally never made money. I think a business model like nebula is more sustainable, but it sucks for those that can’t afford it.

    (To head off any arguments, I’m pro piracy, I just can’t blame YouTube to trying to stop people)

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the ads weren’t so intrusive I wouldn’t mind nearly as much. As it is, if you don’t block them, you’re watching ads as much as you’re watching content. In-line ads would be better I think, but forcing an ad before the video is annoying as hell.

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. Back in 2011 they didn’t bother me at all. I think the issue is once everyone started using ad blockers they had to start squeezing the schmucks that weren’t.

        That and they started allowing unrestricted 4k uploads. That imo is their main issue with money.

    • pewnit@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Another sane take. Seriously, a breath of fresh air after seeing people on both Reddit and Lemmy talking about this with the entitlement of the average r/ChoosingBeggars post

    • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      So if they stop people from skipping ads and the people then stop watching altogether, what’s the difference? They’d save on some bandwidth but look less inviting to advertisers since they have less viewers.

      We need a new internet, one free from corporations.

    • Longpork_afficianado@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It feels like we should have solved this issue a decade ago with bittorrent.

      A website is just a frontend for a fileserver, so why are we not distributing these files across the globe, where we all volunteer a bit of storage and bandwidth to services we want to use.

      Websites really need be nothing more than indexes and trackers which serve up a list of peers who are hosting the files we want.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because have you ever stumbled upon dead torrents? I see this more as a backup method to relieve the load rather than the only one.

        (Wish I had a perma-online SBC to seed my torrents btw)

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s harder to profit from that, so obviously that’s not the direction things went.

      • JW_@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How would the content creators get rewarded in that system? Some of the YouTube ad money goes to the channel the ad is shown on.