• Quik@infosec.pub
    229·
    3 months ago

    Billy should really not support them, Ad Block Plus let’s advertisers pay for having their ads checked as “acceptable advertisements”, i.e. is selling out the core functionality of their product. Billy should use uBlock origin, which afaik does not accept donations, he could however support something like PiHole .

    • Romkslrqusz@lemm.ee
      37·
      3 months ago

      I’m pretty sure those ads also have to meet certain criteria though.

      Using ABP, I’ve never had a popup ad, full page ad, auto-playing video, or other intrusive form of advertisement. The “acceptable ads” have been quiet and out of the way in what would otherwise be empty space.

      With the understanding that some websites and content creators are entirely reliant on ad revenue, I prefer to have those filtered down to those that don’t provide a burdensome experience.

      I will say that having a new tab open with a solicitation for a donation / “premium” every single update (so almost daily) is irritating and they better knock that shit off if they don’t want to alienate users.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        22·
        3 months ago

        The “acceptable ads” have been quiet and out of the way in what would otherwise be empty space.

        I don’t mind this whatsoever. I can appreciate the concept of free is paid for by ads, but when you force me to sit there and have to watch it, or pop ups take over the page, all that excessive nonsense, that’s when I say fuck off and use an ad blocker that will remove everything.

        I actually think dating sites could be improved if they had an ad you could swipe away every 10 swipes or something. (I absolutely loath swipe only apps though. I need to know your personality not your duck face pose…) for apps with bios they could have a “banner” type ad that is between segments of the bio. Anything but “pay $50+/month to make this somewhat functional.”

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.eeEnglish
      16·
      3 months ago

      I have no problem with the acceptable ads system. ABP doesn’t get any money from it, and the ads have to meet the criteria anyways, and it’s easy to opt out. I guess it’s a bit fishy that the list maintainers charge money to get ads reviewed, but the FAQ ThunderWhiskers posted says that smaller companies get it for free, and they only charge the bigger companies. I’m not gonna get up in arms over someone charging Disney money for a service they give the local deli for free.

      I also like the way it gives companies an incentive to produce less intrusive ads. With the system, unintrusive ads reach more people. Otherwise, it’s all or nothing, which makes intrusive ads the best option from a greedy perspective; they’re far more likely to be clicked, and the only cost is the risk of damaging the ad ecosystem as a whole (and you know how little corporations can care about damaging ecosystems.)

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    185·
    3 months ago

    adblock plus is shilled and lets ads through.

    ublock origin, folks. and firefox, because adblocking wont work on chromium anymore.

  • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
    94·
    3 months ago

    I gave Premium a shot. Then the one time I wanted to use the feature Google said I was paying for - being able to download videos - I found out that it was just a glorified pre-buffer.

    • Can’t view the video outside the youtube app or the website, source video file encrypted ✅️
    • Can’t view the video if you havent connected to the internet in 3 days ✅️
    • Does less than your average youtube downloader that you can find for free with one search ✅️
    • Literally just saving Youtube bandwidth because they destroyed every benefit you would get if it was actually reasonable ✅️

    Enshittification isnt just limited to free users folks. Slammed that cancellation button right then and there. Good luck earning back my trust, I’m happy to pay if you didnt scream so loudly that even if I paid, you were going to treat me like shit anyways.

    • khaleer@sopuli.xyz
      33·
      3 months ago

      Make sure that google can’t kill you without consequences after you bought one month of their subscription.

    • Tja@programming.dev
      17·
      3 months ago

      I pay for it and I like the perks. You are giving YouTube money, but also the creator of the video. And synchronizes the view with your account. And takes it into account for the dreaded “algorithm” (which I also find useful, plenty of cool channels discovered thanks to it).

      What did you expect, exactly?

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        28·
        3 months ago

        Ever go to a video website, click a download button under a video, and NOT have that video in your downloads folder? Literally that. That’s what i expect from a download button.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          6·
          3 months ago

          On android the download folder is a mess. I honestly prefer to have the videos in the app. I used newpipe before and it was a bit less convenient (although more flexible).

          Never used it on a computer, tho, that would make sense there.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
            11·
            3 months ago

            I get that. It would be totally fine if it just gave the option. But yes the issue is more egregious on PC.

      • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
        9·
        3 months ago

        I like those perks too, but if I pay more to be able to download videos (which again, I could’ve used a free tool for) I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. Download means getting a file I can watch using my own video player and store for later even if Youtube dies tomorrow, If I go on holiday without internet, or if my internet goes down for a week. Anything.

        If Google is going to be “Uhm aksually, you are technically downloading it, thats why we can advertise it like that”, then I’m already downloading literally every video I watch. And thats not the kind of bullshit you give to a paying customer. That is spitting in my face for paying you. Why does a non-Premium user get better service with free third party youtube downloaders?

        It’s a matter of principle.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          2·
          3 months ago

          I see your point. For videos I want to hoard forever I also use yt-dlp, but for watching colbert on a plane, the app does just fine.

          • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
            2·
            3 months ago

            Yeah, I thought it was a nice compromise. It seemed sensible that if Premium is the ‘compliant’ response to not wanting ads, the ‘compliant’ response to using third party tools to download videos was to just be able to do things more easily and with more options through Premium as well. But apparently they wanted to advertise something anyone who’s wanted to download a youtube video would not describe as ‘downloading’, which is easily out competed by free (but at times shady) tools.

  • Microplasticbrain@lemm.ee
    48·
    3 months ago

    This is the way, appeasement of ad producers doesn’t work.

    At some point number has to get bigger.

    Before you know it were paying for cable tv with ads again.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      21·
      3 months ago

      Except this time we won’t just be paying for the cable, we’ll be paying to get the ads you want, too. You’ll be paying for the DVR function or whatever they want.

      As with everything else it will continue to degrade and enrage it’s customers, and erode the entire country’s very will to live. I am truly curious just how detrimental it is for everyone in this country to be exposed to the THOUSANDS of small fully intentional annoyances daily that are built into every product and service. It has to be a leading cause of how angry and divided we are and is absolutely causing many early deaths. Everyone is so stressed out by every single thing they interact with.

  • Voyajer@lemmy.world
    34·
    3 months ago

    A single piece of merch from your favorite creator will cover for any ads you would have seen for the foreseeable future anyway

    • KnightontheSun@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      3 months ago

      I run UBO, SponsorBlock on FF. I have many t-shirts and hats from youtoobers. Someone was asking about my hat, I said it’s a youtube channel, then they asked about my shirt and I said it’s another youtube channel. I then thought of all the t-shirts I have in my drawer at home. I’d say well over half of them are youtube channel shirts. Made me think I am too deep down the youtube hole, but there is a ton of good content and I like supporting the ones I watch and enjoy. So merch is how I do it so I can be their advertisement. I may not even wear it much, but I’ll buy to support them and to tell others about their channel.

  • KorrokEnglish
    29·
    3 months ago

    I use ublock AND pay for… Nebula.

  • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
    28·
    3 months ago

    Not gonna lie, I bit the bullet and got YT Premium almost 5 years ago. Honestly, one of the best purchases I’ve ever made in my adult life, hands down

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      3 months ago

      Agreed. Plus I know my views pay slightly more to creators than ad-supported views (and far more than ad-block views) so I can feel superior to my fellow man.

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        6·
        3 months ago

        You could use an ad blocker and give even more to the creators you like via Patreon (or ideally better means).

          • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
            2·
            3 months ago

            Porque YouTube/Google gana mucho más que el dueño del canal por esa transacción, además de que lo hace explotando a cientos de miles o millones de personas en el mundo que quieren vivir de influencers.

      • nexussapphire@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        I think it’s worth it too. People are just weird about paying for a product that supports individuals creative ambitions just because a company takes a cut. Admittedly better content than streaming services most the time anyway.

      • glitches_brew@lemmy.world
        4·
        3 months ago

        I typically put children’s music on YouTube when driving with my kid. Not having to shuffle with the phone to skip ads while in the car is a life saver.

    • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      3 months ago

      I had Youtube premium when it included google play music. GPM was so good…

      I unsubscribed everything when they changed to youtube music. Terrible music platform

    • LeadersAtWork@lemmy.world
      6·
      3 months ago

      I’ve had it for AGES. I agree that ads have been a bit much and many websites almost unusable without Origin. YT Premium though has been fairly solid with a couple hiccups.

      Admittedly, I use YouTube as my primary source of entertainment. So the price is easily justified vs other services.

      • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        Free (legal) movies. Most are stuff I don’t want to see anyway, but every once in a while a diamond in the rough pops up

        Edit: Like someone else mentioned, YT is my primary entertainment source for a few reasons, so I’ve definitely gotten my money’s worth. I wouldn’t recommend everyone get it, but I’m happy with my decision

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      1·
      3 months ago

      Doesn’t seem like you bit any bullet, you just paid for your subscription giving money away. What’s the biting the bullet part for you?

      • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        Lol giving away money at all, especially to large monopolistic corporations like Google. They don’t need my money, they already have plenty

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    27·
    3 months ago

    Or… do both. Buy premium because you are actually getting something for your money… a platform. And support ad blockers to stop the ads where the product is just a webpage.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      28·
      3 months ago

      Yeah. I’m actually okay with paying for a service I use daily. Google does a bunch of evil shit to drive its advertising business, but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

      We can pay with money or we can pay with ads and personal data.

      What I would like to see is a law banning data collection for paid accounts. Because right now Google datarapes you even when you pay.

      • amorangi@lemmy.nz
        24·
        3 months ago

        but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

        Youtube gained its market share and stopped any competitors arising by offering a free video platform. Now that there isn’t much hope for competition they have enshitified, plastering ads and demanding money. They endured massive loses for years just to kill competition. So boo fucking hoo when I continue using a monopolists products on the terms they originally offered.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          7·
          3 months ago

          The economic reality is not everything can be free for everyone. Privacy is the price people pay to have “free” access to services.

          But right now, even those who pay to skip ads or have additional features on a service are still being mined for data.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            3·
            3 months ago

            I deny your economic reality. There is no reason social media needs to charge. It can be run purely on volunteers and donations. It may not be able to be as big as FB but that is okay. We don’t need giant multimedia companies running social media anyways.

            We need strong privacy protections for everyone, not just paying customers. It is time to put an end to targeted advertising.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              1·
              3 months ago

              We’re talking about video hosting here. For a hosting site like YouTube that’s several petabytes of new storage added every day assuming no duplicates or backups of anything, plus the bandwidth, overhead, staffing, and more.

              A project of that scale can’t be done by volunteer hobbyists with no money. What you’re asking for is for other people to work and spend billions annually without any expectation of compensation for just your entertainment, and you aren’t entitled to that.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                2·
                3 months ago

                Your inability to see the Internet as a distributed resource is astounding considering it’s purpose. I will repeat what I said before there is no reason social media can’t be done without the corporations controlling everything.

                You can easily host your own videos, if everyone did and we used advanced sharing protocols the load can be distributed. The more people watching the more bandwidth.

                You have become brainwashed into believing only YouTube can exist. You have bought into it so bad you think someone who wants your rights and privacy protected is a free loader.

                We can do at all without them. There is something wrong and perverse about a single entity controlling that much of our culture. Too big to fail you say, I say too big to care about what really matters.

                • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  3 months ago

                  Okay, let’s go with your idea that everybody has the knowledge and hardware retired to self-host.

                  What happens when Grandma’s cute video she uploaded goes viral and 11 million people try to watch it in a 24hr period? Would we rather it simply didn’t work, or does grandma get an unexpected $7,000 bill?

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          8·
          3 months ago

          Good loving people pay for it because they want it to be available to everyone in the world and it’s running costs are pretty low.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          4·
          3 months ago

          Wikipedia isn’t video hosting. The angles of nenual hosting cost for Wikipedia is around 3 million a year. YouTube probably costs nearly as much per hour to keep running.

          500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. That’s gonna be like 60 terrabytes every hour just in storage space increases.

          If you were to try and host that on a cloud server like AWS the cost would increase millions of dollars every day. Google self-hosted, but it’s still unfathomingly expensive. There’s still questions over whether YouTube profitable even with all the ads and the subscriptions.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        3·
        3 months ago

        Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          2·
          3 months ago

          I’d imagine there’s a point where the money from subscriptions is greater than the money from advertising and data hoarding.

          The “unreasonably high” prices should be self-solving in that context, because the company won’t make more money by selling ads for less than the price of a subscription.

          In fact, in order to justify raising the prices too much they’d have to change more for the ads, which in turn would hurt the ad industry by reducing the ROI in marketing.

      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        5·
        3 months ago

        Exactly this. Funding google is a bad investment. Exactly like the comic says, give it to someone who will improve your life.

    • Lemmy Reddit That@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 months ago

      I would pay, if they would offer family pack in our country, but they don’t. Netflix is cheaper for me, I have Premium plan for 10€, and I am splitting the bill with my sister, so I only pay 5€ per month. I am not paying more than that for a YouTube.

  • floridaman
    24·
    3 months ago

    I’m a GenZ-er, and I adblock everywhere I can. What makes the difference with YouTube premium for me is that I fall asleep to YouTube videos on a TV every night, and the advertisements alone can make that experience terrible because you can’t adblock YT on a TV as easily as elsewhere. Premium might be one of my best decisions I’ve made for a platform I spend so much time on. I still donate to Wikipedia and uBlock even if I pay the premium for other services.

    • Pueblo@feddit.org
      10·
      3 months ago

      Depents on your tv. There are good ways for some. S-tube next works for android tv for example, there is a way for webos too

      • floridaman
        5·
        3 months ago

        Yeah I’ve tried this but the experience isn’t all there for me imo. It’s certainly a great project though.

    • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
      8·
      3 months ago

      I’m a GenZ-er

      I fall asleep

      Typical genZ, getting those zzzz’s. That’s probably how they got the name.

    • 0x0@infosec.pub
      5·
      3 months ago

      Youtube premium makes sense for me when combined in a family account for 5 with youtube music for 17.5 USD in total.

      But besides that, fuck Google. Id pirate music if I wasn’t so lazy but Google diminishing anything of what I currently get would probably give me some energy.

    • Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 months ago

      I do the same, but it has to be on my phone, and last I checked that wasn’t an option with the screen off even with Premium. So I used Vanced (and now Revanced). I have moderate-to-severe tinnitus and this setup might have saved my life once or twice.

      • floridaman
        1·
        3 months ago

        Premium has background playback! I use it to listen to video essays with my phone in my pocket when I’m working, screen off. Revanced was my go-to before premium but it has been a pain for me to patch recently (I’m just lazy) so I’m just using stock YT with Premium.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    24·
    3 months ago

    YouTube: Has ads and sells your data like every other online service

    Also YouTube: Doesn’t pay creators much to the point where creators often have in-video advertisements but expects audiences on the platform to pay for an adless experience

    • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
      7·
      3 months ago

      That’s not really correct. While yes, ads don’t pay great, this is generally the case, and maintaining servers with these amounts of data is really expensive. And with YouTube premium, actually, YouTubers get paid quite well. You can take a look at the LTT finances video. They make more money from premium than from YouTube ads, even though only a small fraction has it.

      • ginza@lemmy.mlEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Is LTT the rule or exception tho for that premium vs ads metric? LTT viewers are more on the nerdy side so more likely to have adblocking software. Not saying the data is wrong or anything, I just wonder how it fares on more general topics like cooking, fashion, travel etc.

        • Gladaed@feddit.org
          1·
          3 months ago

          Not to that extent, no. You can argue that not all watchtime is equal and hence the distribution of youtube premium money shouldn’t be proportional but otherwise its hard to argue.

  • Lucidity 🪷@lemmy.worldEnglish
    15·
    3 months ago

    I’m on it daily. A ton of hours between watching videos and enjoying the music catalogue. It’s definitely the only reason I don’t mind paying premium. No complaints.