• veng@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Even if it comes down to a browser addon placing a black rectangle over the video and muting browser audio when an ad plays, I’ll be choosing that over watching ads.

    • DiagonalHorse@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve done something similar by mixing two extensions together in times where unlock origin wasn’t keeping up with YT changes (ad muting extension plus auto skip extension). It worked really well for when you had the video in the background of a game or work, and if I were solely watching the video it was just a trigger for a phone break during the video

  • mkhopper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    112
    ·
    3 months ago

    I wouldn’t even mind the ads if they just played maybe one per three or four videos. That would still bring in a massive amount of money without pissing everyone off.
    Instead we get up to two ads every couple of minutes.

    It’s all about blatant greed.

  • Rookeh@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    3 months ago

    Honestly, I am surprised it took them this long. This technology has existed for a while, there is even a standard for it (see: SCTE-35).

    The harsh truth of the matter is that YouTube is a victim of its own success. The sheer scale of what is needed to keep the platform running at its current level of activity is something that I think most people don’t give a second thought to. It requires a truly astonishing amount of technical expertise, infrastructure, monitoring, throughput capacity, not to mention sheer compute and storage, to keep it running. And that is considering the technical side alone, never mind the business that has evolved around it

    All of the above costs money. A lot of money. So much money that only a shitty mega corporation with no moral scruples would ever be able to afford to run the platform, let alone turn a profit. And so here we are.

    There are niche alternatives like PeerTube, but in practice it is currently in no state to be a drop in replacement. If the fediverse had to deal with the amount of traffic and content from YouTube in its current state, it would collapse immediately. This won’t change until the user base begins to increase, but to do so requires an incentive for people to jump over. And sadly, far too many people just don’t care enough about avoiding ads to do so.

    I think in the long term there will be a reckoning; no matter the size of your platform you are not invulnerable to change. Nobody back in the early 2010s could foresee Twitter falling from grace, and look how that turned out. YouTube will eventually die, the only question is who will be footing the bill for what replaces it.

    In the meantime, if you’re unable or unwilling to deal with YouTube’s ads, or pay to skip them, then just don’t engage with the platform at all. Read a book. Touch some grass. They haven’t found a way to monetize that (yet).

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      If the fediverse had to deal with the amount of traffic and content from YouTube in its current state, it would collapse immediately.

      The Fediverse would be a very different place if it was hosting anything remotely close to YouTube tier traffic. FFS, how much of the Fediverse is even outside English speaking countries? None of our systems are getting bombarded with hundreds of gigabytes of Good Morning messages like Whatsapp is dealing with in India, for instance.

      So much of the content on these big services is both trivial in terms of audience and enormous in terms of relative file size. My sister-in-law sent me a thirty minute compilation video from their latest summer vacation, which she hosted to YouTube. That video is going to get maybe five views, unless one of us goes back to watch it a second time. How much is it costing YouTube to host and stream? Obviously far more than what they make from any of us.

      Now scale that up to millions.

      The Fediverse isn’t trying to do anything remotely like that.

      • cuzit@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        This specific example is one thing that self hosting is arguably better for. I’ve made a few shitposting memes and the like that are five seconds long and uploaded unlisted just to share with friends that get immediately flagged and banned for DMCA that I’ve taken to just self hosting them. They’re getting like three views anyway because the world was never meant to see them.

        People sharing videos with friends and family seems like a problem that’s already solved, if you really don’t want to use YouTube. Big channels that get millions of views are the real issue.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Self-hosting, certainly (to a degree anyway). But the Fediverse isn’t self-hosted. I’m not keeping a catalog of comments on my computer that you lose access to when I close my laptop.

          Self-hosting also tends to require dedicated hardware. Less of a big deal as the real cost of your own personal little server setup has plummeted. But still something that’s predicated on always-on internet connectivity in a way that’s not always practical.

          • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            The other issue with self hosting is while I’m comfortable running web services on a server in my house on my local network I know I lack the competence to harden my server sufficiently to open up a web streaming interface to the web.

      • booly@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not just file size either. Video basically has several different things going on, where improving on one aspect tends to require compromise on the others:

        • Resolution
        • Frame rate
        • Quality
        • Bit rate (file size)
        • Encoding complexity
        • Decoding complexity (which affects battery life of mobile devices viewing the content)
        • Robustness for dropped or corrupted data

        Over time, the standards improve, but generally benefit from specialized hardware for decoding (thus making decoding complexity a bit more complicated when serving a lot of people with different hardware).

        Netflix, for example, serves a small number of very large files to many, many people on demand. That means they benefit from high encoding complexity, even if it shaves off a tiny bit of file size, because spending a few extra hours on encoding a movie that’s 10mb smaller is worth it if 10 million people watch that movie, as that’s 100 terabytes of traffic saved.

        But YouTube/Facebook and the others with a lot of user-submitted video, they’re ingesting hundreds of hours of content every minute, chopping it up into like 5 different resolutions/quality levels.

        Then YouTube has a shitload of processes for determining which video gets which treatment. A random upload of a kid’s birthday party might get a few hundred views at most, so YouTube cares less about file size and more about saving that computational complexity up front. But if a video hits 1000 views in a few minutes, that means it’s on the cusp of going viral, and it might be worth re-encoding with the high cost encodings that save space/bandwidth.

        If a service doesn’t scale, it won’t be necessary to have that kind of complexity in the service. But those videos will load a bit slower, use a little more battery and bandwidth to watch, be more prone to skipping/distortion, etc.

        Video is hard. User submitted video is harder. Especially at scale.

    • nifty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      All of the above costs money. A lot of money. So much money that only a shitty mega corporation with no moral scruples would ever be able to afford to run the platform, let alone turn a profit. And so here we are.

      Or that’s what we’re led to believe. Someone could say the same for an OS, but we have many open source alternatives. We need an open source alternative to YouTube, and perhaps with some innovation that may be possible. You don’t need storage, for example, if content is just streamed in a p2p manner, even with a time delay so people can watch something whenever

      Edit: some context https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2PTV

      For the idiots downvoting explain why, or I’ll just believe you’re YouTube shills

      • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        3 months ago

        Your equating the software development with the running costs.

        People have made OS and people have made YouTube alternatives. But that’s nothing compared to the quantity of servers, networking infrastructure, storage, power usage, and labor to maintain and update it.

        P2p isn’t a valid alternative because that’s just shifting costs onto your users. Just because a central entity isn’t taking on the burden of cost doesn’t mean the cost isn’t there.

        Pictures and text are rather low usage, both in storage and networking but video isn’t. Especially when millions are watching videos at the same time.

        • nifty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          What you’re saying is valid in a model where the server hosts content and provides it on demand, and that’s not what I was describing.

          Here’s the model I had in my head, but I am not sure if anyone has attempted this yet:

          1…user uploads a video which borrows resources from p2p network

          2…the shared burden is shifted around as nodes become active or inactive

          3…content is always available in asynchronous, on demand fashion

          I don’t work in distributed and networked systems, so I don’t expect the above model to strictly be based in reality, but it’s not that fanciful based on the wiki article I shared

          I guess it’s a fair point that users maybe don’t want to be responsible for the burden. In which case, I guess why complain about ads then 🤷‍♀️

          • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            You are kinda describing “maidsafe”

            But maidsafe isn’t fully free, you technically pay access by sharing/lending hardware to the network

            • nifty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Cool, so I don’t understand why it has to be fully free. I think people should be comfortable taking control of their technologies otherwise they should be okay with getting what they get from the service providers

              • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                I totally agree with you, I’m happy to pay when the service is good. I was only mentioning it wasn’t fully free because I know some care about that.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            You’re right that this is possible. But the speed and quality are going to decline considerably under this model, particularly across distant regions.

          • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In which case, I guess why complain about ads then

            Because the average internet user (and many FOSS users, sadly) have gotten into the mindset that they deserve everything for free, the way they want it.

            (For those taking offense to the bit about freeloading FOSS users, I refer you to the FOSS dev burnout trend we were discussing a month ago)

        • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe if we would stop expecting these sites to provide wasteful ultra-huge megaHD videos, it wouldn’t be a problem. Hell, even with YouTube, maybe if they just served DVD-quality videos they wouldn’t need to push tons of ads on us in the first place. Our expectation for this crazy new pointless ultra-sharp quality videos is ridiculous and is part of the problem with content delivery these days.

      • Agrivar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        3 months ago

        For the idiots downvoting explain why, or I’ll just believe you’re YouTube shills

        Fuck you.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        We can barely keep Mastodon / Lemmy instnaces floating that host text, gifs and pictures.

        That doesn’t include paying the content creators.

        Just because you’re getting shit for free, doesn’t mean that other people will want to do it for you for free.

        Fuck you.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Storage and maintenance. OSes are miniscule in comparison to the data YouTube stores, we’re in the multiple exabyte range here. Someone’s got to pay for it somewhere. Floatplane might be a decent comparison as to what a FOSS YouTube might look like - they have a dedicated dev team and charge per channel to view, following more than a couple of creators would become cost prohibitive for me personally.

        You absolutely need storage in a P2P network, the data doesn’t just magic into existence, not only that but if there are insufficient peers in the network then you’re not watching the video, smaller creators and older content would likely suffer as a result.

      • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        peertube uses webtorrents. it’s viable. it works. owncast is fully self-hosted. it works. all the people downvoting are repeating a talking point, and have never implemented these projects.

        • nifty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          They have a point about server costs and maintenance, which is why I suggested community garden type server farms.

          I also didn’t need to call people idiots, but we’re all humans sigh

      • Emerald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Someone could say the same for an OS, but we have many open source alternatives.

        An OS requires significantly less resources. The only online features you need for an OS is a website to market the OS and host ISO’s. Then you need a server to distribute packages to users. Packages which are significantly smaller then HD or 4K videos

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        a) I downvoted you b) I am a YouTube shill c) Fuck you

        that means I get money from them, right? I’m still waiting for my check. YouTube is the best.

      • credit crazy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Considering I remember some project in the past tried something like that in the past and found that because you can’t control when people log off you can’t guarantee files will transfer in one piece not to mention how expensive it was having everyone’s computer constantly using Internet and computing stuff. For that reason I think the main problem here is that we are trying to centralize video sharing onto one platform. I instead propose we encourage people to make their own platforms. Like if you want to watch idk PewDiePie you go to PewDiePie.com and encourage people to explore the Internet instead of just sitting on one site. I suppose as a step in the right direction I propose that we get people to make online data bases using laptops/desktops that have nothing but xzamp and the videos you wish to upload to the web. Then we all collectively promote a sort of aggregation site that promotes everyones videos that way the aggregation site only has to store a bunch of hyperlinks and handle all the traffic while you the content creator just have to handle the traffic your content generates now the only challenge is making this idea profitable because if content creators can’t profit few if any will make content and if the aggregation platform can’t break eaven then we are back to square one of no one knowing where to look for content.

        • nifty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          For that reason I think the main problem here is that we are trying to centralize video sharing onto one platform. I instead propose we encourage people to make their own platforms. Like if you want to watch idk PewDiePie you go to PewDiePie.com and encourage people to explore the Internet instead of just sitting on one site.

          Basically old web but with aggregators, I don’t hate it. I think there needs to be a way to alleviate burden from content creators in a way. Tbh, maybe we need community server farms which are jointly supported, like community gardens in a way

          • Furbag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Old web was awesome. Audiences were smaller, but content was far more personalized and less corporate. I could see link aggregators and relay networks coming back and people self-hosting more of their own content in the future, but it would have to take a massive shift in consumer behavior to wean themselves off of the teat of Web 2.0 spoon-feeding them their content and making content creating/sharing as frictionless as possible.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      All of the above costs money. A lot of money. So much money that only a shitty mega corporation with no moral scruples would ever be able to afford to run the platform, let alone turn a profit.

      It’s cheaper than you think.

      Some estimates put the total number of YouTube Videos around 500 million, and I’ll say each video takes 200MB to store every version. That’s only an extra $24 million a year. With back-end processing and other stuff I’ll bump that total up to $2.0 billion a year for hosting fees, if you were to run YouTube on AWS.

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It requires a truly astonishing amount of technical expertise, infrastructure, monitoring, throughput capacity, not to mention sheer compute and storage, to keep it running.

      Indeed. Yet they still add stupid features like 8K video and high-bitrate 1080p. What the heck are they doing? Who needs more then 720p anyways?

      • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        An engineer who needs a line item on their CV to get promoted.

        Seriously though, 1080p is not a lot if you’re on a big monitor or TV. At 720p you can start pixel counting on some displays

    • Emerald@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      How about people just host videos on their own infrastructure or rented VPS? Honestly the idea that creators should get paid by YouTube/Twitch/etc confuses me. Those services if anything should be charging creators money as they are providing them computing resources.

  • Loce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    ·
    3 months ago

    All this enshittification might be good for me. I think i might start reading more books instead of watching youtube. Fuck you google, I’ll never buy yt premium nor watch you ads.

    • Regrettable_incident@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah that’s what I did when reddit shit the bed. I’m spending the free time with books and getting back into gaming. It’s an improvement really.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can’t point to any one hobby that truly picked up my reddit time, but I do feel like everything I’m doing in its place is more productive

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Those aren’t super intrusive. It’s not a loud ad that has to load, yell at you and slows down getting to the content I question, and printed ads in books don’t disrupt a music listening session by playing shitty ad music between songs as you’re getting a specific mood on. Print ads don’t bug me the way web and video ads do

        • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Many physical books have ads in the beginning and end. I would dare to say all. At the very least, a small “banner” ad for the publisher on one page.

      • not_a_dog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Not OP, but I would definitely pay for premium if they offered a lower cost version that was only ad-free YouTube. But I won’t pay when they justify the higher cost with forced bundling of other services I am not interested in and have no use for, e.g., YouTube Music.

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        $13.99/mo is pretty steep, and realistically I’d have to get it for my wife too which effectively doubles the price and would make it the most expensive streaming service I’ve ever subscribed to (behind SeriusXM which at least has to finance literal satellites in space and delivers me radio when I’m in dead zones with no cell towers). More than my budget right now will allow for sure (I just cancelled every subscription after rechecking my budget)

  • rustydomino@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    3 months ago

    If they do that and Adblock doesn’t work anymore, the solution is quite simple - stop watching YouTube. Sure, there will be some content creators that I will miss. Maybe it will be time to move to Nebula.

    • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      Nebula is paid, you can also pay YouTube and remove ads.

      Nebula is cheaper but it also has a very small fraction of the content that YouTube has. So I really don’t see why moving to another paid service with less content is a solution for anyone.

      • atocci@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        3 months ago

        Nebula has most of the content creators I would pay money to support, and more of that money would be going back to them.

        • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nebula has a small fraction of creators. Admittedly a lot of good ones, but not all, or even most. It’s just not a solution for most people.

        • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also very true, not just USD though. CAD, GBP, AUD as well as others. But yeah in many countries YouTube has market pricing whereas Nebula doesn’t.

      • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Similar reason as people moving from Spotify to Tidal. The creators get paid more per view on Nebula than on YouTube.

        Besides, I imagine there’s quite an overlap of people that watch the type of content that goes up on Nebula and the people that are willing to pay for the content.

        • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Neither is YouTube if you pay them. It just strikes me as odd to say “Fuck YouTube for pushing all these ads, I’m switching to Nebula” when Nebula is paid and the only reason they are getting ads on YouTube is because they refuse to pay.

          It’s essentially punishing YouTube for having an ad-supported option at all.

          • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s about incentives. Alphabet is in the biz of serving advertisers. That’s their paying customer. This is baked into their entire ecosystem of products and services. It’s who they are. It shows in everything they do.

    • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s not like I’m running out of new content from a lot of different directions. I previously said that when YT ads become unavoidable, I’ll just stop going to that site. Someone accused me of trying to dunk on them by saying they’d lose me, but the real answer is that I have too much content to fit in to get to all of it already. If watching content becomes frustrating, there’s other content that won’t frustrate me as much. At least for now. It’ll all turn to shit on a long enough timeline.

      And, you know, as someone else mentioned, there’re books. I like to read and currently do my reading at a park or on days when I’m asked to be in the office. If I run out of brain-rotting content to watch at home, maybe I’ll start reading at home more. Though I’ll probably find other ways to fuck off because I’m good at getting distracted, hence why I read away from home anyway.

    • Tyoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      104
      ·
      3 months ago

      PeerTube. Except nobody’s going to use it until everybody uses it.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          3 months ago

          Load it to what? Who’s going to pay for all the bandwidth and storage. How much are y8u willing to host? Peertube is never going to take off because it well cost users and people like free.

            • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              That’d require a bit more knowledge than the average YouTube user has, unfortunately.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            Who’s going to pay for all the bandwidth and storage.

            The users – it’s all bittorrent.

          • drathvedro@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Just add “decentralized web3 mining” somewhere in the page and crypto-dipshits will host the shit out of it. No actual cryptocurrency nor even a whitepaper required.

      • Howdy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        I just went and looked to see if peertube is remotely viable… technically seems working. I found an app on f-droid, got on a bigger instance (1k users seems about the biggest). Videos load and play. There isn’t much content at all. A real shame. So yeah we don’t have an option

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          3 months ago

          Other than using Patreon or something on the side, I don’t see how anyone is going to make money off of creating Peertube content, either. Becoming a millionaire Youtube star à la Mr. Beast or Linus or whoever the fuck is obviously every aspiring videographer’s goal on there, whether it actually happens or not, and that inherent commercialization draws creators to the platform regardless of whether or not we think it’s for good or for ill.

          Peertube, if it ever takes off, will probably be like early Youtube in that the people posting to it will be enthusiasts who want to, not personalities doing it in the hopes of getting rich. That might be a good thing, depending on how you look at it, but don’t ever expect the kinds of ultra-produced, professional content we see on Youtube these days coming from people who can afford to hire camera teams, video editors, sound people, scriptwriters, on-location shoots, etc., etc.

      • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I upload my videos there. Started off because professor wanted us to record ourselves then I just uploaded whatever. It’s not much but it’s honest work.

      • Damage@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        PeerTube doesn’t have the allure given by the chance of getting paid for what you upload

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    3 months ago

    it hurts so much that it is VERY hard to replicate youtube given the insane upkeep costs. I would leave in a fucking heartbeat but so many good creators only post there

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Not because they couldn’t but because they willfully operated at a loss to quench potential competition. The reason there is no replacement on YT is that all the content is on YT and creators won’t shift to other platforms because their whole audience is on YT as well.

        YT is not a video sharing platform anymore, it’s a market. And that’s why it sucks so bad.

      • sushibowl@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 months ago

        There’s no way to know, Google doesn’t report YouTube profit separately in their financial statements. The closest department is “Google services” which does have a 34% profit margin.

    • ALERT@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      it’s hard to replicate, has high upkeep, big authors’ community. it seems YouTube deserves to be paid despite all the negativity towards it.

      • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I could sit here and throw out all the bad shit YouTube’s done but quite honestly the fact that its owned by google is enough justification to not give them money lmao.

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is where we need to start harnessing AI for our advantage rather than corporations. Have it scan the videos as it buffers and automatically remove the ads.

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      And then Google sues the AI provider to stop them from doing that.

      AI is not our tool, it is a corporate tool, for corporate profits, that they deign to let us dabble with, but only when it suits them.

      • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You could probably train something like that on semi-reasonable consumer hardware. Ads often have a very distinctive style and tone, and you need only a single output - the probability of it being any given second being an ad. It would probably take a lot to run though, you better hope the people who install the extension have good PCs. And, it would probably never get 100% accurate, you’d have to put up with still seeing some ads and having to rewind when it skips over valid video.

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s usually even easier than that… In my jurisdiction, ads have to be clearly labeled and identified. It should be relatively trivial to detect this label.

        • iN8sWoRLd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          it might even be ridiculously simple given that ads almost 100% of the time have louder audio than the content by design.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’ve decided I’m going to do freelance ads for free for exposure on a comment by comment basis while I drink this refreshing iced cold Coca Cola.

    • GrymEdm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      That sounds like the perfect beverage to keep my reactions razor sharp while I enjoy the split-second thrills of playing League of Legends with my attractive, ethnically diverse friends.

  • yamanii@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    It was about time, was always strange that Twitch did it first, and just like over there I’m hopeful some clever people will still make scripts capable of blocking ads.

      • umbrella@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        and twitch is still adblockable. it does look harder though, it bugs out sometimes. i’m sure there will be a great solution, there always is.

        and fuck google while i’m at it, adblocking is only growing because of how egregious ads are getting.

        • Gestrid@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, definitely not impossible. I had to install some TamperMonkey scripts to get Twitch adblock working, but it works.

  • HexesofVexes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 months ago

    Creation of a derivative work without author’s consent solely for the purpose of monetisation - sounds legally dubious to me as you couldn’t claim fair use.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      You think Google didn’t already think of that? From Youtube’s ToS:

      Right to Monetize

      You grant to YouTube the right to monetize your Content on the Service (and such monetization may include displaying ads on or within Content or charging users a fee for access). This Agreement does not entitle you to any payments. Starting November 18, 2020, any payments you may be entitled to receive from YouTube under any other agreement between you and YouTube (including for example payments under the YouTube Partner Program, Channel memberships or Super Chat) will be treated as royalties. If required by law, Google will withhold taxes from such payments.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      From the average viewer’s perspective, it hasn’t changed from before, unless you’re using an adblocker. And as youtube wasn’t sued before, I doubt they will be now.

  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    3 months ago

    A funny thing. I used the “Ad Nauseam” adblocker for a time. This adblocker’s gimmick is that it clicks the ad while hiding it from the user to cause monetary damage to the advertiser. It also collects the ads and displays them in an “add vault”. I did browse the add vault from time to time.

    • Fungah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also. We have ai now. I don’t see it being so difficult to train a model that can recognize ads.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes. What I’m also wondering though, why hasn’t Youtube started injecting ads directly into the video feed earlier?

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          afaik it’s just hideously expensive to do, they have to splice it into every single version of the video and it’s just a massive headache

    • TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      It might be doable automatically. If they inject the ads at the time of viewing and not before storing the video, then it’s possible that two downloads just a few sconds apart will have different ads. So if yt-dlp downloads twice and compares the two files, theoretically it can get a pretty good idea with high confidence of what content is ad and what content is… well… content.

      That technique of course would require multiple downloads of the same file, but yeah. I suppose yt-dlp could also keep a backlog of “fingerprints”/“signatures” of ads its seen in the past that can be used to remove ads from later downloads with the same ads without having to download twice.

      Also, even absent such a technique as what I just described, programs like NewPipe and such will still probably allow for manually skipping ads where I’m sure the official YouTube app or the web interface would deny/prevent skipping.

      Edit: Actually, it also occurs to me that in order to make ads not skippable, the server will have to send messages to the *official clients saying “and here’s the portion of the video you can’t skip.” In which case yt-dlp or NewPipe or whatever could just be like “oh, cool, that’s the bits I need to skip atuomatically.” And if the server doesn’t send that metadata, then all ads will be skipable on the official clients. (Though I guess I’m assuming that they’ll move exclusively to these injected-into-the-video-stream ads and away from the ads as they work now.)

    • Cyborganism@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      I doubt it. You’ll have to edit your videos after download. Learn ffmpeg and you can probably pipe the content in there and cut it out in one line.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    So if the ad is injected directly into the stream does that mean users don’t need an ad blocker and can just fast forward through the ads? I’m fine with that.

      • gentooer@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If it’s impossible to fast forward the ads, that means the timestamps of the ads have to be send to the browser, so adblock should be able to use that data.

        • cows_are_underrated@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          My guess on how they will handle it. The ad segment will get tagged as an ad and operations as fast forwarding(etc) will be disabled as long as an ad is playing.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            operations as fast forwarding(etc) will be disabled as long as an ad is playing.

            That would be easy for an add-on to detect and if nothing else mute the tab and cover the video until operational control is restored. A button I could click to “pause video once ad is finished” would make this a convenient time for me to step away.

            • cows_are_underrated@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              That was just my first instinct on how YpuTube may solve their issue with adblocking. I don’t know how they will do it, but they won’t allow you to skip the ad by fast forwarding.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                YouTube has two options:

                1. Inject the ad into the stream making it indistinguishable from the video. This allows users to skip it if they don’t want to watch it. (I would prefer this honestly)

                2. Try to force users to watch ads by making them unskippable, this makes them easy for add-ons to detect.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Inject the ad into the stream making it indistinguishable from the video.

                  That, luckily, is completely illegal over here.