Skip Navigation
186 comments

  • That, and the absolute curbstomping of creativity through their copyright enforcement methods has gutted the core of a once great service. We are simply watching this thing shamble on to find a place to die: like a heart-shot elk bounding off into the bushes

  • Whoa

    Becoming ever more obnoxious with ad placement because your ad-supported service is losing money and you don't know what else to do is a classic late-stage-enshittification step. It is usually the last one before the service becomes openly hostile to its users and partners and becomes a mostly-worthless relic. I did not think Youtube was at that stage or even close to it but maybe it is.

    I can't really tell if Youtube is losing money or not, but it creates about $8 billion per quarter, and Google's overall operating expense is $55 billion per quarter, and I think it actually might be a safe assumption that Youtube is a pretty decent amount of that expense given its scale and its storage, bandwidth, and employee-resources requirements.

    • Here's the thing about YouTube. From the very beginning, it was a video-hosting platform. Users create content. They upload the content to YouTube's servers. Other users view the content, and upload their own. A simple formula, no? That's why their pre-Google slogan was "Broadcast Yourself". The thing is, storing video data long-term is expensive. This is where Google comes into play, because, unless you've got Google's money, you cannot afford to store literally 100s of Yottabytes of video data, not for very long, anyway. Even if YouTube becomes a "mostly-worthless relic", there's nobody who can readily replace it. I suppose someone could create a fediverse version of it where you simply upload your own content to your own server and then sell (or give) access to other users, but it would be slow to start, and small as not everyone can afford their own server to host their content on. Or, a service that aggregates videos by scraping them from from video servers that it has access to, creating a hub for users to enjoy the content made by other users that is stored on their own servers.

      • Yeah. As with many things, "Can this make money?" is not the same as "Is this a nice thing to have around?" and the disconnect between the two when capitalism tends to assume they'll be the same thing, is a source of unhappiness in many ways.

  • Mid to late 2000s adds were very easy to avoid

    Didn't have to pay to see much of anything.

    Just every now and then a virus.

    Soon we will return to that, except smarter and more adept at not downloading viruses and traps songs labelled as Linkin park

    • First, it was side banners that you could easily ignore.

      Then, late 90s, early 2000s, popups that interrupted your attention. This was such a problem that EVERY browser added a "block all popups" setting, which never blocked the ads, but to this day may block stuff from sites you actually want to use.

      Finally, it became javascript. Fucking javascript. "What could go wrong?"

  • As someone that has used ad blockers for just about as long as I have been able to, I would like to think that this is true. However, I'm not entirely sure that it is. I've heard that a surprising percentage of people just don't even know that ad blockers exist. If that's the case then they may be very well aware of what is happening. (Using made up numbers for the sake of argument since I don't have real numbers) Like if only 5% of users use ad blockers and doubling the number of ads they show only brings that to 10% then it is certainly worth it financially. I doubt that if you were to graph that curve it would be linear - there is certainly a point where you inundate users with so many ads that even non-technical people will start learning about ad blockers. Regardless of what the real numbers are, I would be very surprised if they are making decisions this big without at least being aware of what those numbers might be. And if they can make a small amount of money indefinitely but they have evidence to suggest that they can make even more money also indefinitely then the financial motivation is obvious. Not all infinities are the same size.

    • That's definitely a good point. I looked it up and found a few places saying it was about 38% of users using adblock on the internet in general: https://techjury.net/blog/ad-blocker-usage-stats/

      Although apparently the most adblockers are in Indonesia with over 50%.

      So that would suggest that if there is a tipping point where increasing ads backfires, we're not actually that far away from it, and in some places it may have already happened.

      Although the analysis that "if you add 10% to the price and lose 5% of customers then it's worth it" is definitely true. This is why there's a bottom to every market where for instance some people can't afford even the basic necessities and become unhoused.

  • Adblock is a godsend.

    Although I actually use Invidious for most videos these days. The only things Youtube has going for it are a decent autoplay function and a professional maintenance team. Invidious has things like 'not aggressively selling my preferences to every algorithm under the fucking sun' and 'a functioning search bar' and 'not actively fighting against adblockers'

  • I would even be ok with more than one add for longer videos. Like every 20 minutes they want to put a short commercial in? That'd still be fine for a free video I like enough to watch more than 20 minutes of. But no

186 comments