Looks like its over for me and youtube. Being told I cant watch because of an ad blocker.

Where is everyone moving to and using instead of youtube? I will just move to the same place.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍
    link
    fedilink
    English
    129
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ublock origin is still one step ahead of them (at least on firefox) but you may need to go into the extension settings and purge then update all your filter lists. The copy of Invidious I installed on my NAS is even more steps ahead.

    • appel
      link
      fedilink
      231 year ago

      ublock origin is still one step ahead of them (at least on firefox) but you may need to go into the extension settings and purge then update all your filter lists.

      Specific instructions can be found here: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/6089078

    • yukichigai
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      The copy of Invidious I installed on my NAS is even more steps ahead.

      I too have an NAS that runs Docker and have been looking for things to run on it. Container++! :D

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        It’s handy. The main downside, since I’m the only person watching videos on the instance, is that my popular tab and subscription tabs are the same videos in a different order. So there’s not much of a chance for discovering new channels.

  • @agnomeunknown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    451 year ago

    Actual unpopular opinion: get yt premium. It gives creators the money they would’ve got for you watching an ad, while giving you an ad free experience, and also includes yt music which might take some adjustments if you’re used to Spotify, but then you will also not be supporting Spotify which is probably the worst streaming service in terms of paying artists.

    (They’re all bad and many people would argue similarly against supporting Google via YouTube, so perhaps it’s a moot point, but that’s part of how I justify my sub to myself anyways.)

    • @Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      261 year ago

      Lol no. Youtube pays way less then spotify to the artists. Tidal and bandcamp are the only “ok” options.

      • @IdleSheep@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The few cents a creator gets from your youtube premium subscription is way more than they would ever get from you watching ads, so yes, OP is actually right.

        Just because they’re not gonna get a massive cut from your sub doesn’t mean it’s not the most beneficial solution for everyone.

        • @Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          Sorry but I deeply disagree. Youtube is not the solution, it’s the problem. Giving money to youtube/google, hoping they will give back a fair share to creators is in absolutly no way “the most beneficial solution for everyone”. Sorry to say but that’s capitalism brainwashing. On bandcamp, you set your own price and get 90℅ of the revenues. Patreon, sponsoring, Tidal are all much more interesting solution. Soon enough, self-hosting will make services like youtube irrelevant, and we will finally get to create fair revenues for creators. Meanwhile, trusting any of the Gafam is just reinforcing their position.

    • @UnicornKitty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      101 year ago

      Or you could just become a member of their channel. I look at it this way though. If a youtuber I’m watching has lots of subscribers, one more member in that community probably isn’t going to make a difference. If a youtuber I’m watching doesn’t have the subscriber numbers they deserve, I will become a member. I always choose the highest tiers for them too. And join their patreon and do the same there. If I do that, I will actually listen/watch on patreon then put both YouTube versions in my watch list for when I need background noise and just upvote both videos.

      That way they get all the things I can possibly do for them without giving youtube as much as I give the creators. This is my understanding of how that works though. With premium, if they actually give any of that money to the creators (my heart says no, corporations suck), it would be way less than the channel membership would give them. I don’t actually know how much premium costs though.

      Please do correct me if I’m wrong. At the moment I don’t have very many people on my memberships. And I know most people these days probably can’t afford to do that, but even a $1 or $2 membership to one or a couple of them can make a difference to the ones you really support and who probably need it more than they’d get from premium.

      • @HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Just out of curiosity… how much does that add up to, and if you don’t mind sharing how much all your subscriptions cost you each month in total?

        • @UnicornKitty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          My biggest one is $30 total. That’s also my only patreon currently. I will do more of those soon. I have a list. The youtube memberships probably add up to somewhere around that amount in total. Yes it’s probably way more than premium. I really loved the pay what you want phase of music, but at that time I was broke.

          I am a big believer of supporting talent whenever I can. I am grateful that I have the chance to do so now. My current budget for that stuff is low right now because we are working on moving.

          Thanks to the state of the US, we would have been considered middle class before, but now it’s back to lower. Your dollars don’t stretch very far. I’m lucky to have a husband who feels the same way I do. We will never be rich in money, but we help as much as we can wherever we go. We also make donations to non-profit organizations we know don’t use that money to line their own pockets. So those are the smaller places that always get overlooked. I foster kittens, and we sponsor each one. That means we pay the fees associated with adopting said kitten.

          Apologies for the info dump, but it’s a subject I love. I’ve been dreaming of the day I could do these things since I was in single digits.

    • Subverb
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Even more unpopular opinion: come to terms with the fact that it’s not unreasonable for even a large company to want to charge a fee for the service that they provide and that I consume for several hours a week.

  • @KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    431 year ago

    Peertube is like early Youtube - people making videos for whoever might happen to be interested, without monetary incentive. Plus a lot of crazy mixed in.
    Now I generally avoid all “free” commercial services that expect you to pay with your data or by watching ads.

    If I want professionally made content, I have to pay real money for it, because making that content costs real money.
    But there’s also still lots of people out there who make content for the fun of it, and it’s equally fun to explore that.

    • @1984@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I want to like it but… It sucks. :/

      I would love if it didn’t. Lemmy for example does not suck, neither does mastadon. But peertube… It sucks.

      It’s not the fault of the service. It sucks because the content is just not there. So it’s people’s fault for not using it, but of course they don’t, since the users are not there.

    • @jacktherippah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      121 year ago

      I checked it out last night. I really wanted to like it, but man, it sucks. There’s currently very little content that I like and it seems to be a lot slower to load and navigate than YouTube. Even when i found something that I liked, the video kept buffering and buffering. It was overall a horrible experience. And i tried a couple instances. They all had those issues.

    • @folkrav@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      Can’t say there’s no crazy mixed in on PeerTube either lol. And as much as I’d love to like PeerTube… There’s just nothing that brings me back, content wise.

      • @algorithmae
        link
        261 year ago

        If the people you watch only upload to YouTube, how would they be available on other services?

          • @baatliwala@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            For video hosting? Good luck, that’s almost certainly never going to happen. There is not one single competitor to Youtube even from corporations, there is no way any decentralised solution will work long term, especially not if you are expecting features like 4k or 60fps+ content.

      • @DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not quite - NewPipe is a YouTube client as well. It’s just that it also support PeerTube (a decentralised video hosting solution).

        For YouTube, NewPipe is an anonymous account-free, ad-blocking client. You can import your current YouTube subscriptions using a Google Takeout dump (the NewPipe app gives you instructions) and you can add more channel subs directly in the app.

        The benefits are no YouTube ads, and it’s privacy-friendly but with channel subs - you’re escaping the algorithm. To get the benefit of subs on YouTube directly, you need to login, which means they’re mining your video watching data and using it to target you (and possibly sell that data to others).

        • @FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          For YouTube, NewPipe is an anonymous…

          Not quite. From LibreTube’s GitHub page on their differences:

          With NewPipe, the extraction is done locally on your phone, and all the requests sent towards YouTube/Google are done directly from the network you’re connected to, which doesn’t use a middleman server in between. Therefore, Google can still access information such as the user’s IP address. Aside from that, subscriptions can only be stored locally.

          LibreTube takes this one step further and proxies all requests via Piped (which uses the NewPipeExtractor). This prevents Google servers from accessing your IP address or any other personal data.

          Either way, I use a VPN for both.

          • @DeltaTangoLima@reddrefuge.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            You’re right - NewPipe isn’t totally anonymous.

            The distinction I was trying to make was that you didn’t have to use a Google/YouTube account. I should’ve made that clearer.

  • Jajcus
    link
    fedilink
    391 year ago

    The old business model could not last forever… and even if it could it was not good for anyone.

    Think about it

    Hosting videos is expensive, someone has to pay for it. It was mostly paid by ads. Ads which many (most people) would block and many people would not ever click even when not blocked. But it still made money… The money come only from ads which 1) where not blocked 2) where at least clicked. The business relied on that.

    So YT relied on ads targeting people who did not know how to block ads and people easy to manipulate by the ads (eager to buy whatever they are trying to sell). Probably not the brightest. Or just easy to be taken advantage of. So the incentive would be to promote content for those people. Not good content, not true content, just content that makes ads viewed and clicked.

    People using ad-blocks were still affected by those who do not. And whole site was optimized for advertises not viewers or content creators. And that is bad.

    I am all in favour of any direct form of payments instead of ads powering the internet. Sites get very little money for each view anyway – so the prices for users should also be quite small.

    Unfortunately as long as ads are supposed to be normal part of internet, they may get forced even onto paying customers. We need regulations.

    • yukichigai
      link
      fedilink
      36
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People were okay with ads, then YouTube started making them obnoxious. Ads every 2 minutes, postroll ads that interfere with autoplay, incredibly long “ads” which mean you need to watch YouTube like a hawk to make sure your 5 minute video hasn’t been interrupted by an hour long ad you need to manually skip.

      There’s a balance that people need to be happy with a service, and if the service doesn’t provide that then people will use things like adblockers to get it themselves. It’s the same thing that happened with the first “adpocalypse” that brought about most of the big name adblockers in the first place: people were okay with unobtrusive ads, then advertisers started running popups, overlays, autoplay videos, fake system notifications, on and on and on. The advertising became so disruptive people were unable to use sites without adblockers. And so the cycle repeats.

      YouTube brought this on themselves.

      • @Fester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        191 year ago

        This is my problem with YouTube’s ads. If it was a 5-15 second video ad at the beginning/between videos, plus a banner ad or ads on the side/page, that could be sufferable. But constantly interrupting videos at random points for long ass ads does not mesh well with a short-video platform.

        And I also enjoy reminding people whenever I get the chance that the FBI recommends using an adblocker for security/safety reasons: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2022/PSA221221

        • yukichigai
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          That’s where I’m at as well. For a long time I didn’t bother with adblocking on my TVs and a few other devices because I could tolerate 1-2 ads before every video and the occasional mid-roll ad on the longer videos. Then they started ramping things up; it was when I got 10 ads on a 6 minute video, 7 of which were the same ad that I’d finally had enough. I’m not going back, they can get bent.

    • @Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      lol, every one of these threads has a highly upvoted corporate shill comment.

      And it’s virtually guaranteed that this comment will be replied to in a paternalistic, condescending manner by a for-real-actual-lemmy-user who is only spouting Google’s talking points because they realize how hard and expensive it is to host a video website you guys.

      YouTube pays five-year-old “influencers” millions of dollars. Obviously this is because it is losing money which is your fault for using an adblocker. 🙄

      • @TommySalami@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        I’m not sure the comment calling for regulation is a corporate shill. It’s a pretty level-headed look at things imo, because the truth is YT cannot afford to operate for free. We live in a system that just doesn’t allow that, for better or worse. Unfortunately, the way we went about funding things on the internet (outside of ridiculous amounts of capital flowing to startups for years, which doesn’t really apply to YT/Google) was ads, and they have gotten wildly out of hand. This is on top of an insane amount of data harvesting. We have to face the reality that any major, data-heavy platform like YT is going to need significant revenue.

        We need a solution to either lower the cost of (opening things up for individuals to host), or more efficiently fund, services we like if they’re going to stick around in the current state of the world. Even if we say “google can eat the cost” we’re still putting all our faith in the goodwill of an entity that is designed to do the opposite of what we’re asking. That’s begging for issues.

        Peer-to-peer stuff is the best solution I’ve seen, or self-hosting. I’m far from an expert, but from what I understand the tech just isnt there yet for it to become the norm. All that data has to go somewhere, and storage is prohibitively expensive at a certain point.

    • @coyootje@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      171 year ago

      I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit of money every month to get YouTube ad free. However, it costs €12 a month. That’s a lot of money if you only care about getting rid of ads. I personally don’t need the other features (downloading videos, background play and YouTube music). If they added a 5 to 7 euro a month tier through which you could get rid of ads then that would be much more interesting to me. Now I just feel like I should keep looking for ways around their pop up shenanigans.

      • @Ziggurat@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Also old fag would remember when we also exchanged amateur content on bittorrent, stuff like the Metallica and Britney spears mashup or fun video but capitalists took it off (well, let’s be honest it was mostly for piracy and porn)

    • @Fosheze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      I’d be in favor of direct payments too if any of the money actually made it to the content creators I watch. As it it most of their videos wind up demonitized so I’m not going to pay youtube just so youtube can pay copyright trolls. If they started pushing back against the people/companies filing false copyright claims then I would be willing to pay. But we all know that won’t happen.

      • Not to mention cases where they demonetize a video/channel and still run ads on it 🙄

        Apparently the content isn’t advertiser-friendly enough to pay the creators, but it IS advertiser friendly enough to advertise on.

        • @Fosheze@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          That’s something else that pissed me off. I do understand demonitizing from ad income (although in my opinion advertizers should just cope) for “vulgar” content. But it makes no sense for those same videos to lose youtube premium income. If youtube premium users are watching the video then the poster should be making at least that income even if the video cand be advertized on.

  • @gornius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    391 year ago

    Ok, if I remember correctly, YouTube barely generates, but generates nonetheless revenue for Google. There are many ways to make more money without fucking over its users by cutting costs:

    • downgrade old videos with small watch count to 720p30

    • make people pay for hosting >1080p60 content

    • do not allow private/unlisted videos

    • straight up remove 10h looped videos - they take so much space, but are technically spam - both for bandwidth and storage

    And my go-to solution: focus on sponsorships as main source of revenue. They are the only ads I can tolerate and are actually effective from my experience. YouTube can just take a cut from every sponsorship on YouTube video and everyone will be happy.

  • PatFusty
    link
    fedilink
    38
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    ReVanced for youtube. This links to a Lemmy post of how to install. It also has a FAQ page if interested

    • @MisterChief@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Seconded. I’m about 9 months into revanced after vanced got shut down and its virtually identical. 15 min install with easy step by step guides to enjoy the good youtube has to offer without all the shit.

      Also you can add or remove features you like/dislike which is a big benefit.

      • PatFusty
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        I would have no clue. I would imagine if you wanted to do anything like revances on iOS you would need to start with a jailbreak first then maybe a sideload?

  • subspaceinterferents
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    I didn’t go anywhere. I spend a lot of time on YouTube and enjoy the service immensely. Also, YouTube Music is my main streaming source. And yeah, I pay for both, every month. It’s worth it to me. YMMV.

      • @algorithmae
        link
        271 year ago

        How so? Servers aren’t free. Either you pay in cash or you pay in ads.

        • I run a lemmy server and nobody pays anything to use it. It a public service by me for anyone.

          Just because some company hasnt figured out how to do it doesnt mean something cannot exist for the good of the public run by members of the public.

          Im not interested in conforming to imposed problems personally. Im interested in building resilient systems. That was why we invented technology as humans to begin with. Otherwise whats the point.

          • @patient_tech@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            151 year ago

            Video bandwidth is expensive. Plus YouTube pays the creators too for producing the content. I subscribe to YouTube, and haven’t had a real TV subscription in years. Totally still saving money. In terms of hours per dollar per month, it’s gotta be pennies for me. Plus YouTube music and downloading to my phone to save data is kinda nice too.

          • @algorithmae
            link
            141 year ago

            Are you really trying to compare a text/link service with ~10k users to a HD video service with millions of users?

        • shootwhatsmyname
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Hopefully most of us understand that. I think for a lot of us it’s privacy/ethical issues with Google

      • Jajcus
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        You say content creators should not be paid for their work? And Google should provide all those servers and bandwidth for free?

    • @CriticalMiss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      I’m happy it works for you but unless no tracking/privacy violations is included in their subscription model this will not work for a lot of people here.

      • Same, privacy concerns are huge for me. Also, there’s no way I’m paying $18.99 a month for it, that’s comically expensive. It’s the same as Netflix’s top tier plan, and at least Netflix has the expense of producing their own content to (attempt) to justify that cost.

    • @arcrust@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      I started paying for Google music when it started because I didn’t like Spotify. Now I’ve been paying for so long it doesn’t make sense to move away. When they implementet YT premium, I was hooked. I haven’t seen an ad in years.

      Also, streaming music and video is also way more data intensive, I wouldn’t expect the random good Samaritan to pay the server costs for me. Yeah ads suck, but I don’t see it as such a crazy thing to pay for not to have. Two decades ago you’d pay for cable and still get ads.

      I don’t approve of Google blocking adblockers because I’m sure it doesn’t hurt their bottom line that much, but I also don’t blame them.

      • @Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        91 year ago

        The issue is 10 minutes x 5 ads for a 10 minute video. In what universe is this ok? I was ok with 1short ad at the start of the video but now they also randomly show up. Face it, Google is simply greedy. They know the jig is up and is cashing out as long as possible before it crashes.

        • @melonpunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          Google screwed up like a lot of companies do. YouTube was never profitable to run. They were just burning through cash to keep the lights on and become the number one video host online.

          Internally there became a mandate to try and turn it into a profit making machine and the advertisers caught wind so they stepped in with their demands knowing that they were going to be the source of the profits. This is where the content restrictions started to happen as videos needed to become ad friendly.

          I wish YouTube would have figured out another path to help provide the service and pay video creators. At least with Premium you don’t get ads and Sponsor Skip means you don’t see embedded VPN and game sponsors.

  • I moved to YouTube premium a few years ago, family subscription, to share with up to 5 people. YouTube is my main source of entertainment and the 15 bucks total (or whatever the conversion rate is) is less than 90 minutes of a movie in a cinema, nit even including transportation and snacks. I get my news, tech news/reviews, tutorials, documentaries, inspiration and laughs on there. I watch it while getting ready in the morning, on my lunch break and for a longer while in the evening. I share it with 2 other people so it works out to around 5 bucks a month. And the creators I like get a big portion of that.

    Sure, around 60 bucks a year might sound a lot, but it’s the only service I pay for (except the 2 bucks a month Disney plus trial until December). As a small bonus YouTube music transformed my Google home devices into a multi-room audio Sonos alternative for under 1/3 of the price.

    I still use NewPipe on my phone for downloads for offline use and yt-dlp for content I want to hoard.

  • @Jikiya@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    191 year ago

    I don’t understand this. And not saying it to stir up hate, or troll. This came up for me, I closed the pop-up, and watched the video with no ads. It only added a single click to the whole thing. And they’ve since gone away for me. Don’t know why they stopped, though they have.

    • Whatisawaffle
      link
      fedilink
      31
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think the term is A-B testing. When a company wants to see what effect a change will have, they don’t force it on everyone at once, just on a certain number of people (A), and then see what happens compared to the rest (B).

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/A-B_testing_example.png

      This is why you’ll always get people saying, “Huh, I haven’t seen that. It’s not doing it for me on [browser].” They’re in the (B) group…for now.

      The data the company wants is to know if, do the test people like the change (or are at least willing to tolerate it)? Or do they spend less time on the site? If so, how much? If the results are within their predictions, they’ll expand the testing until everyone is in (A).

      There can also be A-B-C-D-etc testing, where some people who get the blocking windows would be able to close it, and some wouldn’t. How many of each ended up disabling their adblock?

      This also helps to “boil the frog”, where they can slowly get people used to the idea that this is happening, rather than having a whole wave of surprised outrage at once.

    • @Bongles@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      131 year ago

      I believe Google is “testing” it right now, so for some people it’s been slowly escalating to where they were allowed 3 videos before it stopped them from watching anymore videos with the ad blocker enabled.

    • @kurcatovium@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Pop up is with 10 seconds timer here. Ain’t nobody got time for that!

      Piped/invidious/newpipe/freetube it is.

    • HarkMahlberg
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      First, well I’ve been able to get ublock origin to just block the pop-up itself, YouTube now has some scroll event override that locks you to the top of the page. You can’t view the comments or recommended anymore… Not that any value is lost there but still.

      Second, the pop-up triggers a “three strike” system where they won’t let you close the pop-up until you disable ublock. That may be easy enough to defeat today, but if YouTube has already gone to these lengths to force you to watch ads, they may eventually stop loading videos altogether until you do.

  • topher
    link
    fedilink
    191 year ago

    Libretube. Get v0.19 or higher, youtube just screwed around with its code and broke v0.18. I love how it works with sponsor block to even skip those “this video is brought to you by xyz incorporated, be sure to Yada Yada Yada…” segments.

    • @FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Get v0.19 or higher

      Thanks for that. For some reason I thought it notified on updates automatically like NewPipe does, and I was still on v0.16.1. Oops.

  • XIIIesq
    link
    fedilink
    141 year ago

    Unpopular opinion - The ads aren’t that long and content creators deserve to get paid.

    I know that doesn’t answer your question but I don’t think a few seconds of ads is worth leaving a platform over.

    • Black616Angel
      link
      fedilink
      291 year ago

      Counteropinion:

      The Ads are too many, disturb the experience a lot and the creators earn more through other means like patreon or merchandise.

      And you acting like 2 unskippable 30 second ads before a 2 minute video is just “a few seconds” shows that you don’t watch YouTube a lot.

      • XIIIesq
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        I can probably count on one hand the amount of times I’ve had to watch a minute worth of ads for two minutes of video

        I watch more YouTube than any other type of media.

        I know I won’t convince you though.

    • SeaJ
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      They don’t really make much from the YouTube ads though. You might make $2000 if your video hits a million views and chances are that money is going to be split between a crew of people. There is a reason you see all of them having their own does or their own merch or a long list of Patreon subscribers. If you actually want to pay the content creators, buy their stuff or subscribe to them via Patreon.

    • @AWittyUsername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      I remember when YouTube first came out. It wasn’t a “career” there were no content creators. People made and uploaded videos because they wanted to. Then ads appeared on channels that were monetised, they got a cut. This I was fine with. Now non monetised channels have ads everyone has ads