Can’t use uBO from most of the devices I actually watch YouTube on.
For me, it’s much easier to just pay for Premium. No ads on my phone, Playstation, Chromecast, or locked-down work laptop that I can’t install extensions on.
And the creators whose content I consume still get paid for my views. Honestly, it’s worth it for both my use-case and my morals.
They don’t even need to do that, since the ads come from the same domain as the app’s content. Some apps use their own DNS resolver but a lot of the time it’s for other reasons, like preventing DNS hijacking by ensuring DNSSEC records are validated.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn’t be looked down upon. It’s way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I started Premium as Google Play Music back when. Made sense as an alternative to Spotify. In my book, it still does. Ad-free YouTube is just a bonus for a music streaming service.
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
I can afford it and refuse to pay on principle. I actually would be glad if Google went out of business (although extremely unlikely). Monopolistic Companies like them use every opportunity to cheat and modify laws to give them advantage and remove any chance of a new innovative competitor taking over. Then they expect us to act honorable and play by the rules that they set up.
They are the cancer and we need to restore old antitrust laws that supposed to prevent them from ever getting so big.
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, … and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, …
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it’s just kind of disrespectful to be like “well you could just pay for the service, you know?”. Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets.
how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about “morals” because I’m not willing to subsidize a rich person’s hobby.
Regular perople aren’t making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don’t feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I’d just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it’s immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don’t think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren’t gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it’s all highly-polished monetized garbage. They’ve made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It’s to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It’s so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That’s why you get weird accusations of “stealing” content or not supporting “creators,” as if it’s my job to subsidize some rich person’s hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it’s not that anymore, then it can die for all I care – I don’t want it.
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I’m starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
How else do you expect a globally-accessible video hosting service that requires no upfront costs for users to upload millions of video files at the cost of several petabytes of data transfers every day to function?
The users generating the content people actually want to watch wouldn’t be able to do so without the monetization that’s in place, though. They can’t make content for free, and shouldn’t be expected to. And not all creators can rely on sponsorships to subsidize themselves, either, so most creators rely pretty heavily on ad revenue in order to stay afloat on the platform and keep the lights on.
If the creators can’t afford to keep creating, then that also degrades YouTube’s service as a whole, as well.
Really? I’m pretty sure people can make youtube content, and maintain a job. If youtube can’t stay afloat without invasive ads happening every 5 minutes then youtube deserves to go the way of MySpace and every other dead platform before them. Simple as that. Youtube isn’t a necessity.
“the price is what the market will bear” or whatever. I used to pay for ytp (red)/gpm. Paused for a month, went to resub, was like +$4 more a month. I don’t value yt at ~$16, not even at ~$12 really but hey, they wouldn’t fuck billions of users over in the pursing of profits, right? If yt/Google was a scrappy little startup, or a creator that I valued, sure, here’s $5 a month through patreon. But they aren’t, they bought a platform with no clear avenue to monetization/breaking even, and sat on it for 10 years, and then they want to be like ‘please we are the victim here, it’s the evil ad blockers that are forcing us into the streets!’.
G has, metrically speaking, fuck-tons of money. And if they so desperately need to clear their books, they can always close yt, anytime they want. Or they could let the customers pay what they think the service is worth. Hell, they could even shift the costs to the creators, which isn’t the worst idea in the world - it’d at least stop kids from uploading their fortnite clips with them screaming into their mics. Not everybody should be allowed in front of a webcam.
But as long as it’s [number higher than I value yt as] or [shitty experience], I will take option 3 and tell g to gag on my balls, and I shall enjoy my $5 and my ad-free experience.
Lots of options, but nah “fuck the users” came out on top. Acting like the users are the reason why they bought and operated a money pit for 15 years is just hilarious.
Storage isn’t the only cost, or even the major cost, it’s bandwidth to serve them
I don’t see a better way for YouTube to be managed in the current environment, but I do agree it’s not the best possible way; it’s just the ideal way is limited to an ideal world, which we don’t have.
By being seen as the de facto “hub” for Lemmy, they’ve attracted a large chunk of Redditors who haven’t left their Redditor attitudes behind them. As LW continues to grow, I’ve been noticing a lot more immaturity on the platform as of late. It’s honestly a little disappointing to see.
You don’t have to always be ahead. I’ve been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I’ve invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
Paying Google doesn’t feel like the correct thing to do when they keep making Youtube worse while increasing the price. Morally I think it’s wrong to reward their shitty decisions against other users. Personally I’m still mad about they removed the dislike counter.
I’d rather watch non-monetized channels using an adblocker. The entire attraction of YouTube for me was that it was a platform where regular people could share random videos for free. If that’s not what it is, then I’m not interested.
If YouTube had an option to filter all monetized channels from my feed, then that would be the most moral course of action, since I could simply not watch those – quite bluntly, awful – videos.
Once upon a time it was worth it for me too. But since every service is running up the rates, I had to decide which, if any, deserved my money. Google didn’t make the cut. I have a feeling nobody will by the end of year
You could just, you know, send those creators money directly. Nearly all of them have methods set up for that already, and I’m guessing anyone who doesn’t would set something up in a hurry if you asked to donate to them.
It’s a win / win. You get to sit on your moral high ground, the creators get paid, Google can fuck off.
My subscription list is 100+. As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me. At least with my Premium subscription, they’re getting something from my viewership, which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos.
Hold on, Premium subscription where Google gets the cut and doesn’t have to provide you with any report on your money spent is “a financially viable option”?
As opposed to paying even $1/mo per channel I subscribe to, yes. Many creators have come out and said that their earnings reports show that higher-valued views come from Premium users, even though those viewers are not being served ads. It benefits them more than if I were to sit through every ad on their channel.
At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you’re paying $20/mo for premium, and you’re using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations – even measured over several months – compared to the tiny fraction they’d get from that same money via your premium subscription.
It seems like you’re trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That’s fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.
Because realistically, that’s more work than I’m willing to put into it. I wouldn’t maintain that long-term. Especially because then I’d have to also sit through ads (99% of my YouTube use is from my TV via my PS5, so adblock isn’t an option there), which would turn me off from using the platform, at all.
Premium is what works with the compromises I’m personally willing to make. And, this may come as a shock, but I don’t want Google to get nothing, either. They need to be able to maintain their platform, which I get hours upon hours of use of every single day. I don’t take issue with them making money in order to keep the lights on.
As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me.
No one’s suggesting you pay more than what you’re paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you’re paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.
which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos
Now you’re moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn’t get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.
It’s bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.
I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m explaining my opinions on the matter and the choices I made. I’m not sure why you, who are not in any way impacted by my video consumption habits, take issue with any of that.
If you paid the content creators directly they’d receive tens of thousands of times more than any of your views gave them.
I used to work with a partner account, and I can tell you they make NOTHING for views compared to what Google makes.
So hey, you do you, but don’t try to convince us or yourself that this is for the content creators. That’s like saying you order Uber eats to support the drivers, but you never tip them.
This is about the compromises and concessions I’m personally willing and financially able to make. Obviously it’s not the perfect solution, but we don’t live in a perfect world.
Can’t use uBO from most of the devices I actually watch YouTube on.
For me, it’s much easier to just pay for Premium. No ads on my phone, Playstation, Chromecast, or locked-down work laptop that I can’t install extensions on.
And the creators whose content I consume still get paid for my views. Honestly, it’s worth it for both my use-case and my morals.
Revanced for android, SmartTube for android TV
Anything for Apple TV?
Yattee
Possibly something like PiHole? Though I’ve not tried that myself.
PiHole doesn’t work on YouTube ads unfortunately. No DNS based blocker does.
This is generally the case for any sites thay have their own ad inventory, since the ads are coming from the same servers as the site itself.
deleted by creator
They don’t even need to do that, since the ads come from the same domain as the app’s content. Some apps use their own DNS resolver but a lot of the time it’s for other reasons, like preventing DNS hijacking by ensuring DNSSEC records are validated.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn’t be looked down upon. It’s way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I started Premium as Google Play Music back when. Made sense as an alternative to Spotify. In my book, it still does. Ad-free YouTube is just a bonus for a music streaming service.
Agreed. Family plan is priced similar to Spotify, and ad free YouTube is a nice bonus
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
They’re datamining us to the tune of billions.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I can afford it and refuse to pay on principle. I actually would be glad if Google went out of business (although extremely unlikely). Monopolistic Companies like them use every opportunity to cheat and modify laws to give them advantage and remove any chance of a new innovative competitor taking over. Then they expect us to act honorable and play by the rules that they set up.
They are the cancer and we need to restore old antitrust laws that supposed to prevent them from ever getting so big.
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, … and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, …
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it’s just kind of disrespectful to be like “well you could just pay for the service, you know?”. Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets.
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about “morals” because I’m not willing to subsidize a rich person’s hobby.
Regular perople aren’t making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don’t feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I’d just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it’s immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don’t think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren’t gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it’s all highly-polished monetized garbage. They’ve made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It’s to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It’s so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That’s why you get weird accusations of “stealing” content or not supporting “creators,” as if it’s my job to subsidize some rich person’s hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it’s not that anymore, then it can die for all I care – I don’t want it.
I know. I managed a YouTube partner account, but also I Googled it just now.
$1-2 per 1,000 views is what I’m reading, but I can say I personally saw numbers at least five times less than that with the amount I managed.
If anyone wants to support a creator, just donate money to them directly. They’ll be absolutely floored by the gesture.
I don’t disagree, but things like that have to be monotized in some way or else they would not exist.
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I’m starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
I mean, attempting to monetize every single thing in life is juvenile and short sighted as well.
How else do you expect a globally-accessible video hosting service that requires no upfront costs for users to upload millions of video files at the cost of several petabytes of data transfers every day to function?
On donations?
I mean the flip side of that is that youtube would be worthless without the content the users generate.
The users generating the content people actually want to watch wouldn’t be able to do so without the monetization that’s in place, though. They can’t make content for free, and shouldn’t be expected to. And not all creators can rely on sponsorships to subsidize themselves, either, so most creators rely pretty heavily on ad revenue in order to stay afloat on the platform and keep the lights on.
If the creators can’t afford to keep creating, then that also degrades YouTube’s service as a whole, as well.
Really? I’m pretty sure people can make youtube content, and maintain a job. If youtube can’t stay afloat without invasive ads happening every 5 minutes then youtube deserves to go the way of MySpace and every other dead platform before them. Simple as that. Youtube isn’t a necessity.
If that’s how you feel, then don’t use it. Don’t consume the content made by people who quite likely rely on ad revenue to pay their rent.
Simple as that.
“the price is what the market will bear” or whatever. I used to pay for ytp (red)/gpm. Paused for a month, went to resub, was like +$4 more a month. I don’t value yt at ~$16, not even at ~$12 really but hey, they wouldn’t fuck billions of users over in the pursing of profits, right? If yt/Google was a scrappy little startup, or a creator that I valued, sure, here’s $5 a month through patreon. But they aren’t, they bought a platform with no clear avenue to monetization/breaking even, and sat on it for 10 years, and then they want to be like ‘please we are the victim here, it’s the evil ad blockers that are forcing us into the streets!’.
G has, metrically speaking, fuck-tons of money. And if they so desperately need to clear their books, they can always close yt, anytime they want. Or they could let the customers pay what they think the service is worth. Hell, they could even shift the costs to the creators, which isn’t the worst idea in the world - it’d at least stop kids from uploading their fortnite clips with them screaming into their mics. Not everybody should be allowed in front of a webcam.
But as long as it’s [number higher than I value yt as] or [shitty experience], I will take option 3 and tell g to gag on my balls, and I shall enjoy my $5 and my ad-free experience.
Lots of options, but nah “fuck the users” came out on top. Acting like the users are the reason why they bought and operated a money pit for 15 years is just hilarious.
You say YouTube’s solution was “fuck the users”, but the solutions you offered are “fuck the creators”. I’m not sure how that’s any better.
I fail to see how asking creators for their cost in storage space is “fucking the creator” but okay
Storage isn’t the only cost, or even the major cost, it’s bandwidth to serve them
I don’t see a better way for YouTube to be managed in the current environment, but I do agree it’s not the best possible way; it’s just the ideal way is limited to an ideal world, which we don’t have.
LW has a reputation?
By being seen as the de facto “hub” for Lemmy, they’ve attracted a large chunk of Redditors who haven’t left their Redditor attitudes behind them. As LW continues to grow, I’ve been noticing a lot more immaturity on the platform as of late. It’s honestly a little disappointing to see.
deleted by creator
Yeah you can have YouTube premium and also use an ad blocker…. Being mad at YouTube is just the hot thing right now
You don’t have to always be ahead. I’ve been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I’ve invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
You’ve definitely saved time by using an adblocker/Revanced, compared to having to watch ads or keep track of a paid subscription.
Paying Google doesn’t feel like the correct thing to do when they keep making Youtube worse while increasing the price. Morally I think it’s wrong to reward their shitty decisions against other users. Personally I’m still mad about they removed the dislike counter.
Nobody’s forcing you to use it, then.
I’m not. I’m just commenting on the moral argument you mentioned.
The most moral course of action would be to simply boycott the service altogether.
I’d rather watch non-monetized channels using an adblocker. The entire attraction of YouTube for me was that it was a platform where regular people could share random videos for free. If that’s not what it is, then I’m not interested.
If YouTube had an option to filter all monetized channels from my feed, then that would be the most moral course of action, since I could simply not watch those – quite bluntly, awful – videos.
Once upon a time it was worth it for me too. But since every service is running up the rates, I had to decide which, if any, deserved my money. Google didn’t make the cut. I have a feeling nobody will by the end of year
uBlock works on Firefox on Android.
ReVanced replaces native YouTube app and Smart Tube replaces YouTube on TV.
That does nothing to address my moral concern, which is ensuring that the creators whose content I watch are getting paid.
While I appreciate free things, I know that I can’t keep getting free things if the people making them can’t afford to do so.
You could just, you know, send those creators money directly. Nearly all of them have methods set up for that already, and I’m guessing anyone who doesn’t would set something up in a hurry if you asked to donate to them.
It’s a win / win. You get to sit on your moral high ground, the creators get paid, Google can fuck off.
My subscription list is 100+. As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me. At least with my Premium subscription, they’re getting something from my viewership, which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos.
Hold on, Premium subscription where Google gets the cut and doesn’t have to provide you with any report on your money spent is “a financially viable option”?
As opposed to paying even $1/mo per channel I subscribe to, yes. Many creators have come out and said that their earnings reports show that higher-valued views come from Premium users, even though those viewers are not being served ads. It benefits them more than if I were to sit through every ad on their channel.
At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
I suggest you do the math. Your views are worth about $.001 each. Google it. The most generous estimate I could find was $.005 a view.
If you donate a quarter a month to your favorite creators, you’ll be doing more for them than giving them 50 views within the same month.
And that’s the highest estimate. The lower end shows you giving them 250 views to break even on that 25¢ monthly donation.
Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you’re paying $20/mo for premium, and you’re using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations – even measured over several months – compared to the tiny fraction they’d get from that same money via your premium subscription.
It seems like you’re trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That’s fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.
Because realistically, that’s more work than I’m willing to put into it. I wouldn’t maintain that long-term. Especially because then I’d have to also sit through ads (99% of my YouTube use is from my TV via my PS5, so adblock isn’t an option there), which would turn me off from using the platform, at all.
Premium is what works with the compromises I’m personally willing to make. And, this may come as a shock, but I don’t want Google to get nothing, either. They need to be able to maintain their platform, which I get hours upon hours of use of every single day. I don’t take issue with them making money in order to keep the lights on.
No one’s suggesting you pay more than what you’re paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you’re paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.
Now you’re moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn’t get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.
It’s bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.
I’m not moving the goalposts. I’m explaining my opinions on the matter and the choices I made. I’m not sure why you, who are not in any way impacted by my video consumption habits, take issue with any of that.
I don’t think they really care about the creators. This is just virtue signaling.
YouTube ad revenue is a pittance. If you want to actually support creators, send them money directly.
It’s crazy how unaware people are of the options out there, and the little effort it takes.
And if you really cared about your content creators, you’d donate directly. You’re giving more money to Google than to them.
Enjoy your subscription price hike
If you paid the content creators directly they’d receive tens of thousands of times more than any of your views gave them.
I used to work with a partner account, and I can tell you they make NOTHING for views compared to what Google makes.
So hey, you do you, but don’t try to convince us or yourself that this is for the content creators. That’s like saying you order Uber eats to support the drivers, but you never tip them.
This is about the compromises and concessions I’m personally willing and financially able to make. Obviously it’s not the perfect solution, but we don’t live in a perfect world.