- cross-posted to:
- tech_memes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- tech_memes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Shareholders. Devs are just trying to not get fired
Devs are beholden to customers.
And the highest paying customers are enterprises that want to advertise. No one cares about the lemmings that actually watch videos.
I was just following orders, I can’t be held responsible!
Well yeah if we’re applying that to atrocities and murder it wouldn’t be a valid argument. But these are workers that don’t have a union that are sometimes living paycheck to paycheck. They’re just trying to not be homeless.
I don’t work at YouTube but speaking as a tired, underpaid dev who works for a company he hates, I am just trying to get by. I don’t even have PTO right now. I do plan to form a union in my area though.
I’ve worked a number of tech jobs and quit all of the ones that involved me directly contributing to or outright directly performing an immoral act.
I have no respect… pity, sure, but no respect for anyone that knowingly contributes to making the world worse for other people.
You are trying to form a union, that is commendable, an actual step toward positive change.
Most people?
They knowingly contribute to systems that make the vast majority of people worse off, and then bitch about other people doing the same thing in another field.
Or they don’t know or care about any harm their work causes, but still bitch about everyone else doing the same thing.
First, do no harm is apparently too difficult to apply to one’s own life.
If we all keep acting as cogs in the machine that makes everything worse… everything will obviously get worse.
Two main points: Workers individually are powerless, that’s the point of unions. I work in the media industry and if I quit a job with no notice it’ll take me minimum 6 months to find a new one. That’s 6 months of grabbing an income wherever I can, and if we rule out shareholder owned entities that’s easily 6 months without an income entirely.
You’re getting massively downvoted, but you have some valid things you’re saying, but also some shortsighted things, I think.
To be able to quit a job if they wanted you to do something that would contribute to making someone else’s life worth is a place of privilege, most people are living paycheck to paycheck. At least in the US. Because of that, most people, even in the tech sector, don’t necessarily like their job they just like not being homeless. So they stay quiet and get the job done. I don’t think it’s that they don’t care, I just think it’s that they don’t realize that if they were to unionize and defend themselves they could get a lot of change done. To make people realize that takes a good leader and/or someone to take initiative, and those types of things are conveniently left out of our education. We are taught to be good workers and to be grateful of the bosses for paying us. It can take quite some effort to make people realize that they generate the revenue of the business and they are the most valuable asset in the company: the workers. Especially down in the south of the US where I live.
This video pretty accurately breaks down what I’m saying: https://www.tiktok.com/@moneywithkatie/video/7438453768158547242
To be able to quit a job if they wanted you to do something that would contribute to making someone else’s life worth is a place of privilege, most people are living paycheck to paycheck
But uh, that shouldn’t apply anywhere near as significantly to a software dev for YouTube, as compared to a person making shit tier wages at all call center or McDonalds or something.
The software dev is getting paid a whole lot more, has a whole lot more pre-existing wealth, has a resume that would enable pursuing other, similarly though perhaps slightly less lucrative jobs in the same line of work, that don’t feed the beast as malevolently.
The beast that disproportionately feeds upon the objectively less well off and more victimized lower wage workers.
I used to work for MSFT. Large Intl. Import Export Firm.
Then I realized I could not stomach the guilt.
Took a voluntary paycut and worked a similar job for a Non Profit helping the homeless.
(Software Engineer, DB Admin, Data Analyst, Root Cause Analyst, BI Reporter/Analyst, blah blah blah.)
I am not holding software devs with huge salaries to any higher moral standard than I hold myself to.
Of course many, many people are basically stuck in a position where they have no realistic alternatives.
I very well understand the economic and societal factors that play into why people stay at jobs they hate, why people will not typically voluntarily risk their job for a moral stance.
It would be very stupid and shortsighted to say that everyone working paycheck to paycheck ahould commit noble economic seppuku out of protest.
But this thread is about Software Devs for one of the largest and best paying Software companies in the world.
They could protest. They could quit. They could afford that.
MSFT just fired a bunch of people who didn’t want to work on projects or for a company which is directly aiding and abetting the ongoing genocide in Gaza.
The truth is most of these well off software devs do not have the moral backbone to do anything other than develop a self loathing complex, if they even care about anyone other than themselves at all.
Most of the people that I knew, the corpos, they took their high incomes and immediately became AirBNB or traditional landlords or house flippers.
They only cared about their net worth, all while basically pantomiming, Patrick Bateman style, concern and sympathy for all those affected by the problems they know they are excacerbating.
“ads are the same thing as being a nazi!!!”
In the long run, its not that different.
We’ve already seen how the mass proliferation of targeted advertisements on corporate social media platforms promulgates mis/disinformation, radicalizes and stupifies and enrages society … to the point that all they understand is pathos, and then they vote for a fascist.
there’s a difference between making a bad UI and orchestrating a genocide, yknow
If your bad UI makes money by profiting off of the mass distribution of advertisement for political propoganda and politicians and social movements that want to create a totalitarian fascist society…
It’s just genocide with extra steps.
Yes sacrifice your livelihood so that someone else can implement the feature anyway.
Just use an ad blocker.
Yes sacrifice your livelihood so that someone else can implement the feature anyway.
Yes, that’s called having a backbone, aligning your actions with your own moral code.
This is the same logic as ‘well if I had quit my executioner job, someone else would have done it, therefore I am a morally blameless and non hypocritical executioner who is against the death penalty.’
Just use an ad blocker.
Obviously this is the easy solution for yourself personally. Costs you nothing, benefits yourself, allows the systemic bad practice to continue.
The actually accurate analogue would be to contribute toward actually creating or maintaining a free and widely usable adblocker, an alternate platform, to do something that helps other people overcome the problem.
How are you gonna pay for that?
With a job or other source of income, or lifestyle that propogates/depends on less overall harm.
And that would be?
Do you want me to come up with a personal recommendation for yourself?
Sacrificing your livelihood is much closer to killing people than to adding some extra ads on youtube
Yep, the classic dilemma of software devs with YouTube on their resume:
Keep working for YouTube, or never work at any other software company or non profit organization or any other employer that wants software devs, or any other kind of job, and just starve to death.
Its truly a shame the software dev’s decisions are so binary.
It seems like a lot of this perception originates in the gaming industry where in some cases the devs actually do have quite a bit of control over user experience. In the rest of the software world, this stuff is driven by product management / marketing / whatever title they give to the people who define requirements.
“Why isn’t one of the most expensive to operate websites free?!”
There’s a reason there are zero actual competitors in this space (maybe TikTok but it’s full of its own problems). Only a company as big as Google can afford to run at this scale. Feel free to add your business plan on how to make YouTube free without ads and without it shutting down in 3 months.
Ads and subscription aside, any time there is a feature I like on YouTube, they remove it or change it. More often than not when they add a new feature, it makes the experience worse for me.
I understand they need to make money. I’m willing to sit through ads or pay a subscription for that. But the ads are constantly getting worse. Mid-roll ad breaks that are auto-generated into the video (for older videos, content creators would have to go through their library to manually change them, from what I understand). A push for censoring content to avoid demonetisation, even content not intended for children.
Yes, part of it is that I got used to YouTube in its early days when it was operating at a loss. When it was a wild west of content creation. But it just feels like it has become so unfriendly to users and content creators alike. It has become corporate and sterile, while trying to squeeze in revenue everywhere it can. (Likely to barely break even, sure, but they don’t have to make it crap to use to do that.)
I’ve been stewing on making an “unpopular opinion” post about how neckbeards ruined the internet by demanding everything be “free” (meaning ad-supported) and then using ad blockers (meaning the normies had to pick up the slack).
I’m fine with having to pick between ads and paying for a service, but when there are ads when I paid not to see them…
I pay for YouTube premium and have for several years, but if I start seeing ads I’ll go to watching Nebula and listening to podcasts and cut out YouTube.
I pay for services (including lemmy - support your instance leeches) and use an ad blocker for everything else.
Ah yes
The failing newspaper strategy
Yeah, especially when you consider that if you’re nostalgic for any time on YouTube prior to 2015 it wasn’t profitable at the time.
Well you say that, but I feel entitled to free shit. - Common take on lemmy
This but unironically? One of the reasons there’s no YouTube alternative is because it’s not profitable, but the other is it’s a monopoly. If YouTube failed tomorrow I’m sure a lot of free alternatives (Odyssey, Peertube instances, etc) would blow up
Not a business plan because business=money, but how about creators host their own videos and share them through BitTorrent. No need to deliver real time video, users just download what they want to watch then watch them as they become available. Funding occurs through Kofi or Patreon etc. They’ll need to publish the magnet links somewhere but that’s a whole load cheaper than publishing RT video.
The vast majority of what YouTube does on a technical level is ingesting a ton of uploaded user video, encoding it in dozens of combinations of resolution, framerate, quality, and codec, then seamlessly choosing which version to serve to requesting clients to balance bandwidth, perceived quality, power efficiency in the data center, power efficiency on client devices, and hardware support for the client. There’s a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, and there’s a reason why the user experience is much more seamless on YouTube on a shitty data connection than, say, Plex on a good data connection.
No, it doesn’t need to be realtime, but people with metered or throttled bandwidth might benefit from downloading just in time video at optimized settings.
Option 1: lose money
Option 2: more money
Google: chooses option 2
Internet: surprisedpikachu.png
I really don’t think it’s the devs driving these decisions…
On one hand, yes, on the other, the devs won’t pitch ideas that go against the ad machine either. So ideas from devs are either neutral or pro-ad as well.
Why would they release a product for free that costs massive amounts to run
…into the ground
I sure sleep better at night knowing that they put a little gradient on the playback bar that turns the tip of it slightly magenta, though.
These platforms seem more vulnerable to alternatives than they ever have been before but it turns out the opposite is true. The hosting infrastructure is so expensive that it prevents competitors from even starting. Datacenters are basically a cartel and getting your foot in the door is near impossible without bouncing in on the heels of someone who’s in. Making compute storage cheaper is not the name of the game when it’s easier to profit by simply limiting access and driving the price up.
On the other hand, YouTube has never been profitable.
Google has destroyed their own ads revenue by adding more and more ads. Imagine they’d have stopped with simple side banner and people would’ve not even bothered to use an adblocker because of it. This tiny little banner would’ve been worth as much as the multiple seconds ads now. The companies would pay as much, as there’d be no alternate.
Oh no, I didn’t pay and have to watch an ad! Literally slaves.
Genuinely curious what parts of the UI have gotten worse. Open video, video plays, move on.
It’s obvious that Google would rather try to make money than bleed it into one of the most expensive websites out there, so the ads are a moot point. Pay or become the product.
Two big things I’ve noticed:
-
They removed the Chromecast queue feature. So if I’m casting to my TV, I can either play one video at a time, or I can enable autoplay and see what the algorithm decides to serve me - I can’t queue up a few videos and just watch those, like I used to be able to.
-
Playlists are becoming harder and harder to use. Finding the button to add a video to a playlist, moving videos from one playlist to another, and managing playlists in general has all become more difficult recently.
-
Why does the video stop when you turn your phone screen off?
If the only answer is “so that people will pay money for it”, you are garbage.
Its crazy Ads are starting to show up on premium. Just Cable 2.0.
???
There’s a lower cost ad plan for YouTube music is that what you mean?
I thought everyone wanted YouTube premium without the music. That’s the ad plan: it shows ads on music because you’re not paying for ad free music.
Just because it is a free innovative video hosting platform … it still doesn’t mean it is useful or beneficial. Thousands and thousands of hours of just useless junk content of idiots showing to everyone in infinite detail how stupid they are … and the worst part is, everyone loves it.
There is also a lot of educational content, including lectures, interviews, popular science channels, investigative journalism, and tutorials on anything from how to apply nail polish to how to fly an actual Boeing 737 from real airline pilots. This list is endless. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with junk content either, sometimes we all need to unwind and watch something silly. Don’t take YouTube for granted.
Educational YouTube is the only reason I ever visit the site at this point.
YouTube is free, accessible and innovative, though? That meme doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The worse the UI is, the more often users will have to click/tap stuff, which boosts the “engagement” stats.
