Looks like its over for me and youtube. Being told I cant watch because of an ad blocker.

Where is everyone moving to and using instead of youtube? I will just move to the same place.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    951·
    1 year ago

    ublock origin is still one step ahead of them (at least on firefox) but you may need to go into the extension settings and purge then update all your filter lists. The copy of Invidious I installed on my NAS is even more steps ahead.

      • algorithmae@lemmy.one
        191·
        1 year ago

        If the people you watch only upload to YouTube, how would they be available on other services?

          • baatliwala@lemmy.world
            81·
            1 year ago

            For video hosting? Good luck, that’s almost certainly never going to happen. There is not one single competitor to Youtube even from corporations, there is no way any decentralised solution will work long term, especially not if you are expecting features like 4k or 60fps+ content.

      • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Not quite - NewPipe is a YouTube client as well. It’s just that it also support PeerTube (a decentralised video hosting solution).

        For YouTube, NewPipe is an anonymous account-free, ad-blocking client. You can import your current YouTube subscriptions using a Google Takeout dump (the NewPipe app gives you instructions) and you can add more channel subs directly in the app.

        The benefits are no YouTube ads, and it’s privacy-friendly but with channel subs - you’re escaping the algorithm. To get the benefit of subs on YouTube directly, you need to login, which means they’re mining your video watching data and using it to target you (and possibly sell that data to others).

        • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          For YouTube, NewPipe is an anonymous…

          Not quite. From LibreTube’s GitHub page on their differences:

          With NewPipe, the extraction is done locally on your phone, and all the requests sent towards YouTube/Google are done directly from the network you’re connected to, which doesn’t use a middleman server in between. Therefore, Google can still access information such as the user’s IP address. Aside from that, subscriptions can only be stored locally.

          LibreTube takes this one step further and proxies all requests via Piped (which uses the NewPipeExtractor). This prevents Google servers from accessing your IP address or any other personal data.

          Either way, I use a VPN for both.

          • DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.comEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            You’re right - NewPipe isn’t totally anonymous.

            The distinction I was trying to make was that you didn’t have to use a Google/YouTube account. I should’ve made that clearer.

      • PatFusty@lemm.ee
        1·
        1 year ago

        I would have no clue. I would imagine if you wanted to do anything like revances on iOS you would need to start with a jailbreak first then maybe a sideload?

  • gornius@lemmy.world
    305·
    1 year ago

    Ok, if I remember correctly, YouTube barely generates, but generates nonetheless revenue for Google. There are many ways to make more money without fucking over its users by cutting costs:

    • downgrade old videos with small watch count to 720p30

    • make people pay for hosting >1080p60 content

    • do not allow private/unlisted videos

    • straight up remove 10h looped videos - they take so much space, but are technically spam - both for bandwidth and storage

    And my go-to solution: focus on sponsorships as main source of revenue. They are the only ads I can tolerate and are actually effective from my experience. YouTube can just take a cut from every sponsorship on YouTube video and everyone will be happy.

  • Jajcus@kbin.social
    2810·
    1 year ago

    The old business model could not last forever… and even if it could it was not good for anyone.

    Think about it

    Hosting videos is expensive, someone has to pay for it. It was mostly paid by ads. Ads which many (most people) would block and many people would not ever click even when not blocked. But it still made money… The money come only from ads which 1) where not blocked 2) where at least clicked. The business relied on that.

    So YT relied on ads targeting people who did not know how to block ads and people easy to manipulate by the ads (eager to buy whatever they are trying to sell). Probably not the brightest. Or just easy to be taken advantage of. So the incentive would be to promote content for those people. Not good content, not true content, just content that makes ads viewed and clicked.

    People using ad-blocks were still affected by those who do not. And whole site was optimized for advertises not viewers or content creators. And that is bad.

    I am all in favour of any direct form of payments instead of ads powering the internet. Sites get very little money for each view anyway – so the prices for users should also be quite small.

    Unfortunately as long as ads are supposed to be normal part of internet, they may get forced even onto paying customers. We need regulations.

    • yukichigai@kbin.social
      231·
      1 year ago

      People were okay with ads, then YouTube started making them obnoxious. Ads every 2 minutes, postroll ads that interfere with autoplay, incredibly long “ads” which mean you need to watch YouTube like a hawk to make sure your 5 minute video hasn’t been interrupted by an hour long ad you need to manually skip.

      There’s a balance that people need to be happy with a service, and if the service doesn’t provide that then people will use things like adblockers to get it themselves. It’s the same thing that happened with the first “adpocalypse” that brought about most of the big name adblockers in the first place: people were okay with unobtrusive ads, then advertisers started running popups, overlays, autoplay videos, fake system notifications, on and on and on. The advertising became so disruptive people were unable to use sites without adblockers. And so the cycle repeats.

      YouTube brought this on themselves.

      • Fester@lemm.eeEnglish
        12·
        1 year ago

        This is my problem with YouTube’s ads. If it was a 5-15 second video ad at the beginning/between videos, plus a banner ad or ads on the side/page, that could be sufferable. But constantly interrupting videos at random points for long ass ads does not mesh well with a short-video platform.

        And I also enjoy reminding people whenever I get the chance that the FBI recommends using an adblocker for security/safety reasons: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221

        • yukichigai@kbin.social
          3·
          1 year ago

          That’s where I’m at as well. For a long time I didn’t bother with adblocking on my TVs and a few other devices because I could tolerate 1-2 ads before every video and the occasional mid-roll ad on the longer videos. Then they started ramping things up; it was when I got 10 ads on a 6 minute video, 7 of which were the same ad that I’d finally had enough. I’m not going back, they can get bent.

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      2211·
      1 year ago

      lol, every one of these threads has a highly upvoted corporate shill comment.

      And it’s virtually guaranteed that this comment will be replied to in a paternalistic, condescending manner by a for-real-actual-lemmy-user who is only spouting Google’s talking points because they realize how hard and expensive it is to host a video website you guys.

      YouTube pays five-year-old “influencers” millions of dollars. Obviously this is because it is losing money which is your fault for using an adblocker. 🙄

      • TommySalami@lemmy.world
        7·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure the comment calling for regulation is a corporate shill. It’s a pretty level-headed look at things imo, because the truth is YT cannot afford to operate for free. We live in a system that just doesn’t allow that, for better or worse. Unfortunately, the way we went about funding things on the internet (outside of ridiculous amounts of capital flowing to startups for years, which doesn’t really apply to YT/Google) was ads, and they have gotten wildly out of hand. This is on top of an insane amount of data harvesting. We have to face the reality that any major, data-heavy platform like YT is going to need significant revenue.

        We need a solution to either lower the cost of (opening things up for individuals to host), or more efficiently fund, services we like if they’re going to stick around in the current state of the world. Even if we say “google can eat the cost” we’re still putting all our faith in the goodwill of an entity that is designed to do the opposite of what we’re asking. That’s begging for issues.

        Peer-to-peer stuff is the best solution I’ve seen, or self-hosting. I’m far from an expert, but from what I understand the tech just isnt there yet for it to become the norm. All that data has to go somewhere, and storage is prohibitively expensive at a certain point.

    • coyootje@lemmy.world
      111·
      1 year ago

      I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit of money every month to get YouTube ad free. However, it costs €12 a month. That’s a lot of money if you only care about getting rid of ads. I personally don’t need the other features (downloading videos, background play and YouTube music). If they added a 5 to 7 euro a month tier through which you could get rid of ads then that would be much more interesting to me. Now I just feel like I should keep looking for ways around their pop up shenanigans.

      • Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
        21·
        1 year ago

        Also old fag would remember when we also exchanged amateur content on bittorrent, stuff like the Metallica and Britney spears mashup or fun video but capitalists took it off (well, let’s be honest it was mostly for piracy and porn)

    • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      1 year ago

      I’d be in favor of direct payments too if any of the money actually made it to the content creators I watch. As it it most of their videos wind up demonitized so I’m not going to pay youtube just so youtube can pay copyright trolls. If they started pushing back against the people/companies filing false copyright claims then I would be willing to pay. But we all know that won’t happen.

      • thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
        7·
        1 year ago

        Not to mention cases where they demonetize a video/channel and still run ads on it 🙄

        Apparently the content isn’t advertiser-friendly enough to pay the creators, but it IS advertiser friendly enough to advertise on.

        • Fosheze@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          That’s something else that pissed me off. I do understand demonitizing from ad income (although in my opinion advertizers should just cope) for “vulgar” content. But it makes no sense for those same videos to lose youtube premium income. If youtube premium users are watching the video then the poster should be making at least that income even if the video cand be advertized on.

  • Sowhatever@discuss.tchncs.de
    188·
    1 year ago

    I moved to YouTube premium a few years ago, family subscription, to share with up to 5 people. YouTube is my main source of entertainment and the 15 bucks total (or whatever the conversion rate is) is less than 90 minutes of a movie in a cinema, nit even including transportation and snacks. I get my news, tech news/reviews, tutorials, documentaries, inspiration and laughs on there. I watch it while getting ready in the morning, on my lunch break and for a longer while in the evening. I share it with 2 other people so it works out to around 5 bucks a month. And the creators I like get a big portion of that.

    Sure, around 60 bucks a year might sound a lot, but it’s the only service I pay for (except the 2 bucks a month Disney plus trial until December). As a small bonus YouTube music transformed my Google home devices into a multi-room audio Sonos alternative for under 1/3 of the price.

    I still use NewPipe on my phone for downloads for offline use and yt-dlp for content I want to hoard.

  • topher@lemm.ee
    8·
    1 year ago

    Libretube. Get v0.19 or higher, youtube just screwed around with its code and broke v0.18. I love how it works with sponsor block to even skip those “this video is brought to you by xyz incorporated, be sure to Yada Yada Yada…” segments.

    • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      Get v0.19 or higher

      Thanks for that. For some reason I thought it notified on updates automatically like NewPipe does, and I was still on v0.16.1. Oops.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    4·
    1 year ago

    I still haven’t encountered this. Use FF with updated uBO filter lists and you should be fine.

  • MuttMutt@lemmy.world
    41·
    1 year ago

    Just sign out and remove all the youtube cookies and the adblockers still work just fine. Sign in when you want to comment or use another browser that is signed in and never watch the video on that browser. Simple solution. Another option is watch the video by right clicking and opening in a “new private window” instead of watching while signed in. That works really well until you want to comment.