this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
1013 points (96.9% liked)

memes

10406 readers
1771 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 59 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

We are just one step away from YouTube being a paid only service.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 111 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

I think that would be the death of the platform

I'm even wondering how people can use it as it is without ad blockers or clients like newpipe

Every time I use it on not-my-device I'm losing my nerves, because I have to watch at least 2 ads for a 1min video, when I want to show someone something

[–] renzev@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It would be a tragedy if youtube collapsed. There are so many useful and important videos on there. I passed the second year of my engineering bachelor almost exclusively by studying from youtube (the lectures at my college are useless), the vast breadth of content available on that platform simply does not exist anywhere else, and archiving all of it would be a monumental task. With youtube being a net loss for google for multiple years in a row, it's not outside the realm of possibility that if they can't make it profitable, they might just... shut it down like they did with Plus.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago

When they first started ramping up ads and demonetising more videos for being insufficiently advertiser-friendly, they probably still had enough goodwill from users that if they'd immediately launched YouTube Premium and presented it as a way to both remove ads, and support video creators that couldn't rely on ad revenue, it would have been decently successful. A good number of YouTubers who had to switch to sponsorships and Patreon could have been pushing for people to subscribe to Premium instead of play Raid: Shadow Legends, which presumably would have boosted subscriber counts, and might have been enough to make YouTube profitable and much more pleasant for both free and premium users than it is today. Instead, they burned through a large amount of goodwill before implementing Premium, so people were already more reluctant, and for a long while it only shared revenue with a select few channels who were already raking in ad money, and was unaffected by view counts, so early Premium subscribers were paying Logan Paul even if they never watched that kind of video, but weren't paying the channels they actually watched.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Maybe we should start mirroring to a federated service

Just some time ago, I was thinking about some P2P Video service, where everyone would provide the data they have - so like a BitTorrent YouTube

But I'm not sure if that would be viable

[–] renzev@lemmy.world 19 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just some time ago, I was thinking about some P2P Video service, where everyone would provide the data they have - so like a BitTorrent YouTube

It's called PeerTube. It uses activitypub, the same federation protocol as lemmy. Large creators could certainly afford to host their own videos. Some federation/self-hosting/free software creators already do. Can we have large free-to-use instances where individuals can upload their videos, like we do with Lemmy? I would like to hope so.

But just standing up and copying all of youtube's content? Like I said, it's a MONUMENTAL task. There are around 14e9 videos on there. That's almost two videos for every person on planet earth. And I'm not even sure how useful mirroring would be. It's important for archival purposes, sure, but it's not forward-thinking. For a lot of pieces of content, the value comes mainly from the community surrounding it, not the content itself. Mirroring cuts the community out of the content. I believe that If archiving/mirroring efforts are to succeed at anything beyond occupying disk space, they must be focused on a specific type of content, and headed by people who are genuinely passionate about the content they are archiving, not disintrested data hoarders.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

PeerTube is really P2P?

Ok, I could have figured because of the name. Now I feel like an idiot...

[–] 2xsaiko@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, it even uses BitTorrent to distribute videos.

[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 30 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The same way people watched cable TV for decades. The slow ramp up of ads has a portion of the population prepped to be slightly frustrated, but willing to deal with it.

But yeah having been spoiled with no ads for years now, I have to mute my parents TV every time I go over. Even muted, there's still something about lots of ads that draws my eye more than whatever the actual show is. Drives me nuts.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Just to be clear, ads free cable TV was a thing on a very small minority of cable channels for less than 10 years (from 81 up until 87 if I recall the research I did on the subject correctly), the only reason people keep talking about it is because they didn't live it. At first the vast majority of cable channels were just regular channels from regions too far away to get a signal for with antennas and cable only channels mostly had ads as well, there were something like four of them that didn't.

[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago

I wasn't really referring to the free years, but the many years where people put up with increasingly loud and lengthy commercial breaks which became so invasive that shows would literally design their beats around being interrupted

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I'm even wondering how people can use it as it is without ad blockers or clients like newpipe

I tend to use my TV and don't have a PiHole. I usually watch 20-45 minute long videos and, for some reason, YouTube actually puts fewer ads on longer videos. Get like maybe two, 30 second ad blocks in a ~25 minute video. But then I'll get three, 90 second unskippable ad blocks in a 1:30 video. 🤦‍♂️

IDK why they don't just have it only show an ad every X minutes, regardless of it being the same video or not. Or what about ads on Shorts? I haven't seen a single ad the few times I've been binging shorts.

There are also videos and entire channels that aren't monetized at all that never get ads on them. Like when people put a pirated film on there it doesn't get taken down, it just has no ads.

[–] naeap@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Probably because shorter videos get more views

But I'm only guessing...

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

This seems likely to me. The goal is to get it in front of as many eyes as possible, and ppl looking for a quick dopamine hit aren't typically pulling up videos over 5 mins long. Probably looks better in their stats when they charge absurd prices to advertisers too

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 2 weeks ago

Some of the shorts are ads themselves

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 1 week ago

I blocked YT ads on my Samsung tv using TizenTube. It's fucking great.

[–] piskertariot@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

There's still the step where Youtube has Spotify level ads. Whatever the visual equivalent of bait-and-switch-fav-song/LISTENTOMYPODCAST/oh-god-are-those-sirens-behind-me is.