I can tolerate ads as long as it's helping the creators and isn't used to make the platform worse. The first condition is only sometimes satisfied and the 2nd is being straight up violated.
If they can fix how garbage search is and put the dislike count back, I'll happily pay for premium as a thank you for making a great platform. But nope, they just focus on making the UI even worse.
This is a good discussion point, rather than an arms race discussion of ads vs adblockers.
Some key points to make are that Google is making a crap ton of money from ads, they are keeping most of it so creators must resort to sponsorships and patreon. Google additionally makes money by selling your profile data.
It's not like I have a true answer to your question, but a "workable" system should consist of:
Google makes money
Creators make money
Customers are reasonably private
The concept of making money isn't about making the entire system worse, just so you pay for it not to be
My problem with Google is they don't really care. They'll burn it all if it makes them money until it's dead.
There could be some key features that get implemented on a paid tier, but paying is just ads vs no ads.
An equally valid question would be, what can YT do to incentivize you to pay? They could ad features only available to subscribers, but they really don't.
I would make it a semi walled garden, with free and premium content. Subscription tiers would be for customers and creators alike. Vimeo has a good system (though not perfect) with feature sets only available certain tiers. There's incentive to upgrade if you want those features.
Here's a big differentiator though. YT has this magic algorithm that feeds you what it wants to. Creators have no say in that (nor do customers). But if I post a video you like, I want you to watch more of my videos, not videos from somebody else similar to me. YT takes full control, and sends people away just as fast as sending them in. Why would I pay for that?
Platforms like Vimeo don't do that (I'm not advocating vimeo, they're just the example I think is most comparable). Wouldn't having some level of control over that as a viewing customer and content creator have value? No, let's just slap ads on it.
I can also argue that this goes against my final criterea point, that YT just made things worse with their algorithm and this is just paying to remove it. There was a day where subscribing to a channel meant you got to see their videos. No bell ringing needed.
And I'm sorry I just vomited my brain into these thoughts and wall of text. If you made it this far, bless you.
But this is why I don't use YT directly. I was with vanced but ended up with newpipe, because its a simple scraper. That fact not only removes ads, but it gives me control of what I watch with my time (which has value). That is the lesson YT forgot, and the root of why any of this is an issue.
I only pay capitalists what is absolutely necessary. I will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn't profit driven comes along.
It should be publicly-funded, like infrastructure. Having a video sharing platform is clearly very important, but I don't think there are any companies that are both capable of running it and trustworthy enough to do so.
Art should not be produced for profit, because it stops being art. Ideally we would subsidize artists, or better yet provide for everyone's needs and let them make art in their free time. Forcing us to watch corporate propaganda about fucking dishwasher detergent ain't it.
They can continue burning money the way they always did; you can't honestly expect me to give the first fuckin shit for the 21st century robber baron capitalists while they're actively and provably stealing out of our pockets. You are smoking crack if you genuinely expect that. If they're not gonna pay me for every millibyte of data, every smallest measurable iota they've stolen from me to train their AI models, then they can continue self-subsidizing Youtube without trying to raid my pockets again.
It's actually cheaper to stream videos without ads, less traffic less diskspace ;)
It just got pushed too far. Like Google search itself. Most people are fine with a short ad once in a while, while paying with their invaluable personal data, but they push it too far and make it unwatchable, like Google search itself became garbage because of all the Google pushed SEO bs.
If they're saying third party apps are fine as long as they show ads, I could see third-party apps displaying ads. And then having option to cover the add playback with a black screen, or with other content, but the default behavior would be to show the ad.
Yeah, every few 18 months you'll probably have to get the latest api and re-revance it. But unless they lock up their api somehow, revanced should be good.
Yeah FreeTube and NewPipe both work for me still. Might be a problem in the future, but I'm hoping I dodge by being in the weird nerd slice that isn't worth trying to force ads to.
One of my biggest pet peeves recently has been people trying to show me <30 second videos on their phone, and having to sit through a full ass 30 second advertisement. It takes such minimal effort to block the ads, you’ll make up the time invested within a week.
And you know what, as I’m typing this I’m realizing it’s not purely the ads that are annoying. Just don’t fucken show people random 30 second meme videos in person, it’s annoying as shit. Send a link or something, we all have phones.
YouTube is bringing its ad blocker fight to mobile.
In an update on Monday, YouTube writes that users accessing videos through a third-party ad blocking app may encounter buffering issues or see an error message that reads, “The following content is not available on this app.”
It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.
But now, YouTube says its policies don’t allow “third-party apps to turn off ads because that prevents the creator from being rewarded for viewership.” This appears to target mobile ad blockers like AdGuard, which lets you open YouTube within the ad blocking app, where you’ll get to view videos interruption-free.
“When we find an app that violates these terms, we will take appropriate action to protect our platform, creators, and viewers.”
This likely won’t come as pleasant news to all the users who watch YouTube through ad blocking apps, but it doesn’t look like YouTube is backing down in its battle against ad blockers anytime soon.
The original article contains 220 words, the summary contains 165 words. Saved 25%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Folks, Just read the extra 55 words in the article. Most of you wont spend a dime on journalism of any kind, at least fully read the articles your interested in.
Last year, YouTube “launched a global effort” to encourage users to allow ads while watching videos or upgrade to YouTube Premium. It also began disabling videos for users with an ad blocking extension enabled.
“We only allow third-party apps to use our API when they follow our API Services Terms of Service,” YouTube says.
To get around this, YouTube once again suggests signing up for the ad-free YouTube Premium.
This bot is saving me from having to open the "article", try to decipher SEO bullshit modern journalism just to find shitpost like this, eat some ads, and unavoidable (at least on mobile) trackers, js, etc. Also personally hate link posts, i wish people put this kind of summaries in the actual post.
I don't get it. If Google really cares about ad revenue, why not just slap DRM to each and every videos? They can protect their interests, and DMCA anyone who dares to circumvemt it.