Firefox users are reporting an ‘artificial’ load time on YouTube videos. YouTube says it’s part of a plan to make people who use adblockers “experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using.”

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    646
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    “They’re the same picture.”

    Also, that does not explain why:

    • Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue
    • Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue
    • FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issue

    Now, if only we knew who made Chrome and YouTube… The mind boggles.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      177
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Given that Google’s been talking about switching Chrome to a new plugin format that would limit the ability of adblockers to function on Chrome, and given that Google owns Youtube and profits from the ads Youtube displays…

      Nope, I’m not connecting the dots. Not sure why Google would be wanting people switch from Firefox to Chrome at this time.

      • ElleChaise@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits. That’s more than enough info to assume they’re going to go to war in the near future (now) with them.

        • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          38
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’ve always been at war with ad blockers. It’s just most major multinationals have matured or diversified to a point where they are functional monopolies, and no longer gain any value in competition or service improvement.

          At this stage of the merger and consolidation phase of global capitalism, with captured governments that won’t dare break them up or fine them more than a meek virtue signal, the most cost effective way to satiate the infinite growth of capitalism is to increase the exploitation and value extraction of their existing user base as much as possible (aka enshittification).

        • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.

          Concluding implicitly: “… and therefore a threat to all your computers’ security” :-)

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more obvious than that even; their SEC paperwork states that adblockers are a risk to their profits.

          Sounds like the single best reason to use one.

        • dalekcaan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dear God, won’t anyone think of the shareholders?

      • ButtDrugs
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just for clarity, they already switched protocols (Manifest v3), they just have continued to support the old format (v2) that allows unlock origin to work. They are discontinuing support for v2 next year.

      • flappy
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        What really pisses me off is that mv3 is becoming a standard that Vivaldi, Firefox, Opera, Edge, etc. will use.

    • barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The last scenario is clearly a breach of anti-trust laws. It is time for alphabet to be broken up. Their monopoly is way worse than AT&T every was.

      • thanevim@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alphabet’s monopoly is bad, make no mistake.

        But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          But they aren’t controlling all electronic means of communication for 90% of the continental United States, as AT&T did in the ma’ bell and pa’ bell days.

          Google controls over 90% of the search business in the US and that’s the way the vast majority of people begin their browsing. It’s why US v Google is currently in the courts

          • Kodemystic@lemmy.kodemystic.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            MS vs US back in the 90’s did not result in anything significant. This pretty much will happen again with Google. Some lobbyists will just do their thing, some minor slaps in the wrist and concessments between DoJ and Alohabet etc and Google will continue to Googling around.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Uh… Gmail, Ad sense, search?

          They’ve got like a dozen duopolies going on, they have far more control and ability to leverage it than Bell ever did

    • iAmTheTot@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, that does not explain why:

      Chrome users who use an adblocker don’t get the issue
      Firefox users who do not use an adblocker get the issue
      FIrefox users who use an adblocker, but change User Agent to Chrome, don’t get the issue
      
      

      I am a Firefox user who uses adblock and I don’t get the issue.

    • Ilgaz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chrome sends every single website you visit to Google. You already pay with your privacy.

    • tiredofsametab@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know several websites consider firefox’s built-in privacy settings an adblocker in certain configurations. I get notices on many sites and use no adblocker. Not sure if it’s the case here.

    • casmael
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      What do you mean by change user agent to chrome? Asking 4 a friend

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        For a specific how to, there’s a bunch of firefox addons that do it, but the mozilla recommended one is this

        https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-string-switcher/

        It’s super easy to use, just open it and it gives a bunch of options.

        This is my current (fake) user agent;

        Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

        With two or three clicks, this is my new (fake) user agent;

        Mozilla/5.0 (X11; CrOS x86_64 14541.0.0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

        A few more clicks;

        Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; HLK-AL00) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.102 Mobile Safari/537.36 EdgA/104.0.1293.70

        And finally;

        Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 10.0; Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_3; Trident/6.0)

        Now, that last one is making it look like I’m using internet explorer… Youtube videos will not load with that last one active. Claims my browser is too old and not supported.

        I don’t know why they all start with Mozilla/5.0 but the apparently a lot of websites will block your requests if you don’t have it (or a valid browser strings like it?)

        • hyperhopper@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          Almost all user agent strings start with that Mozilla prefix because Mozilla made the first browser with “fancy” features, so in the early internet many websites checked for that string to determine if they should serve the nice website or the stripped down version. Later when other browsers added the features, that also had to add that to their user string so users would get the right site. Which just cemented the practice.

        • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just a reminder to not use user agent switcher unless it’s absolutely necessary, and if you do, limit it only for certain sites that need it. If enough people change their user agent, website operators will be like “See, no one use Firefox anymore. We shouldn’t bother to support it anymore”.

          • mosiacmango
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I personally like seeing Mozilla loud and proud in all the user agents.

            It’s a mess, but also an echo of history.

      • thanevim@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When you browse to a website, your browser passes info about itself to the server hosting that site. This info is intended to help the server provide the best rendering code for your browser. This is called your User Agent.

        However, Google is using it here to identify Firefox users, and is apparently choosing to lump them all in a box called “adblock users” instead of trying to identify an ad blocker more accurately.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you do change your user agent, I would use an extension that does it only on YouTube domains.

          We want independent metrics to show rising Firefox use, not falling.

          • casmael
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah cool I’ll have a look. Any extensions spring to mind?

        • Norgur@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s because they may use code to detect as blockers that is not legal in the EU, so they might have thought that they’re super crafty and used markers such as user agent for their cool coercion delay code thingy

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          To add on

          You can spoof this user agent to see if a website does something shady depending on which browser you’re using.

          So if you keep all other variables the same, and just toggle the user agent value, YouTube behaves differently

    • Supposedly Firefox users spoofing the Chrome user agent don’t get the issue because the script tries to execute the 5s delay in a way that works on Chrome but not on FF. Because the Chrome method doesn’t work on FF, it just gets skipped entirely. But I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate, just read about it.

  • Kumatomic@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    205
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The degree in which corporations engage in psychological warfare against customers is astounding. Not surprising, just outrageous. Don’t want notifications on? We’re going to ask you to turn on notifications in the the program every single day until you do it. Don’t want to watch ads because our infinite greed has destroyed what used to be a good platform with a reasonable number of ads before we bought it? Then we’ll make the experience less pleasant until you comply. They already make multiple parts of YouTube disagree with ad blockers on purpose to break the sites features. Not that I use anything other than NewPipe and Piped anymore anyway. I’m just sick of shitty corporations acting like we’re children who can be punished.

    • deleted@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We are in a war indeed.

      I think it’s a new trend with CEOs and investors. They want infinite growth so the strategy is aquire / create, grow, squeeze, throw away, while creating new products to migrate fed up customers. Rinse and repeat.

      Investors goal: maximize ROI this year.

      CEO goal: infinite growth and/or increase share price to keep funds flowing.

      I believe the current economic behavior isn’t sustainable. Some day things will go south.

      • Mike@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually think they are currently all going south. This increase in ads is just one part of the fall I think.

        • deleted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Id say the last stage of squeeze might be more accurate.

          Because it’s possible to recover now.

          Once the majority of big corps reach the no return stage, we’re all screwed.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The idea that the only real duty of corporate leadership is to drive shareholder profit is apocalyptically naive and ultimately nihilistic, and it has been since the words dribbled from Milton Friedman into the NYT magazine back in 1970.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          short term. The problem is driving short term profit. In the short term, you profit by abusing your customers. If you considered long term profit, you need to also consider customer satisfaction

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, I stand by what I said.

            If you build something well, it will sell itself. You won’t need financial gymnastics to make your company or the product look good.

            Stupid financial tactics like stock buybacks (which, as a result of how the stock market works, have a direct positive impact on stock price) should be illegal.

            The problem is the focus on profit over and above the focus on literally anything else. That’s what modern corporate leadership has come to understand as the true meaning behind Friedman’s words. And it’s killing our society, our environment, and in many cases, the companies themselves (because the tactics are obviously unsustainable).

      • Iron Lynx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Infinite growth in a finite world is impossible.

        Do we need to start requiring all C-suite managers to learn thermodynamics?

        • deleted@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          They know, they just wanna accumulate as much fat bonuses as possible before the crash.

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s a new trend with CEOs and investors. They want infinite growth so the strategy is aquire / create, grow, squeeze, throw away, while creating new products to migrate fed up customers. Rinse and repeat.

        This is it and there’s another wrinkle driving it IMO which is the end of QE. When rates were at sub-inflation (so basically negative) and investor capital was everywhere, none of these companies really cared about milking the customers because they were already fat and happy milking the government indirectly. Now the government cheese machine has dried up and so now we’ve gotta get the stock price up a quarter of a point by any means necessary instead.

    • Kevnyon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s literally like that shit from Ready Player One where the guy suggests that you can fill up the VR screen with like 80% ads before the user gets sick from it. That’s what they are doing now, they will push ads until people either stop watching or not enough people subscribe to Premium. The fact that you can’t even skip ahead in a video without getting more ads, even if you just got the pre-roll ads. It’s completely unacceptable and I think that there should be laws that would prevent that type of consumer abuse.

    • Elderos@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t you just love being fed plausible deniability BS over and over and over again. I’ve lost friends over this bs. People who always argue in bad faith, always invoke plausible deniability, always min/max each interaction with hidden motives - should be given no attention and credibility. Unfortunately, those people strives in corporate environments, and as you would expect, they’re often responsible for marketing, PR, sales, and corporate strategies. Corporations are the annoying lying friends you don’t want around.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      YouTube didn’t have ads before it got bought IIRC, not that it would have lasted that way even if it was not bought

  • Onii-Chan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    163
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d still prefer to wait 5 seconds than have to watch a fucking sanitized corporate advertisement trying to sell me bullshit I don’t want and won’t buy with annoying fucking music, voiceover, and footage of people pretending to be happy.

    Fuck off, Google. Good thing this will be easily bypassed anyway.

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If it were one ad I might be fine with it, but it’s usually 2-3 ads every 5-10 minutes, at a volume twice as loud as the video, and each up to 2 minutes long.

      • Event_Horizon@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        1 year ago

        A made the mistake of watching YouTube on my TV a few weeks back, without an ad blocker. I was getting 1-3 15 second ads every 2-3 minutes!

    • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate ads too. Would you consider paying for a service so it’s user supported instead of ad supported? I do, pay for YouTube, Spotify, Hulu no ad tier. It gets old because it starts adding up. I’d rather pay for a user owned platform like a coop of some kind, but still, these things do cost money to run.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I won’t pay for YouTube because the executives are literally thousands of times wealthier than I am.

          Why the fuck would I give money to people who are already obscenely rich?

      • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        People don’t have issues paying. As you said, if it was a user-run co-op, people would be fine with it. But as it stands right now the services keep raising their prices just because they can while all the money goes to the bosses and shareholders while the actual people who do most of the work get whatever is left over

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do pay for some services, where there is reasonable value.

        However I rarely use YouTube so was fine with dealing with the devil of ads. Was. The inexorable march of enshittification will likely make me either never use that service or try technical workarounds for some of the enshittification (excessive ads)

      • aesthelete@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hulu no ad tier.

        I won’t be shocked when they eventually get rid of this altogether. They shouldn’t be shocked when I switch to 100% piracy when they do.

        Fuck ads.

  • Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    156
    ·
    1 year ago

    But wait, wouldn’t a 5 second pause on loading still be way better than sitting through minutes of adverts? :-D

    Punishment my arse

  • Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    120
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wouldn’t it be neat if YouTube had reasonable competition? You know, so when YouTube adds a five-second delay as a strange style of punishment, a different platform would look more attractive?

    • Chozo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      104
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There will never be a real competitor to YouTube, because nobody else is willing to run at a net loss for a decade before seeing their first profitable quarter, like Google did with YouTube.

      Turns out, free video hosting is expensive as fuck.

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        There will never be a real competitor to YouTube

        That sounds reasonable but you’re thinking way too small. Lets not forget that Tiktok is already more popular than YouTube with a very, very large chunk of younger people, for example.

        But besides that, let’s not forget that absolute giants in the business have been toppled. Look at Yahoo! as one example. Hell, even entire countries can fall within a few decades, whole empires.

        So, assuming that there will never be a decent YouTube competitor is a very limited way of looking at it. Who’s to say Google will still exist in any meaningful market leading way in 20 years?

        Sure they’re big now, but what if the entire face of the internet and how we use it and what we want fundamentally changes (say with the addition of highly advanced AI that brings changes we can’t even predict right now).

        There will absolutely one day be a service that can rival YouTube and eventually replace them, it’s the same with every product from every business, it’s the circle of life I suppose. But whether that will happen within the next 5 years, or 15, or 30, only time can tell :-D

        Never say never, though!

        • moitoi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          TikTok isn’t YouTube. It’s two different method to consume videos. TikTok doesn’t replace YouTube per se. Some people split the available attention time between them and in favor of TikTok.

          It will be hard to compete on the YouTube field. But, there is multiple places for a different way to consume video with a different user experience.

          On the YouTube field, it will be hard. I don’t see creator moving with their community. The same issue has with let say Reddit, Twitter, etc.

          • zerofk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s the commenter’s point: YouTube might not be replaced, but that doesn’t mean it cannot disappear.

      • reddig33@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Im surprised Amazon hasn’t stepped into the space to advertise their own products. They already own a huge storage cloud backend.

          • Nix@merv.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Its so strange they let their users store 2 hour+ VODS but dont let users upload edited videos? Would make so much sense and even save them storage since user’s would replace VODs with edited videos since no one watches VODs

            • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In the relatively rare cases that I watch stuff on twitch, I usually watch the VODs. Don’t have the time or energy to sit though hours of a stream in one sitting, nor am I usually able to catch one live, nor do I like feeling like I’ll miss something if I have to leave early, so I prefer to just watch the recordings of them at my own pace over multiple sessions.

            • wandermind@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I often watch vods. My favorite streamer’s time zone and streaming schedule mean that I can only catch a couple of hours of the beginning of their stream before going to bed, and I couldn’t regularly watch 8-10 hours of stream in one go anyway, so I watch the vods of the streams I want to see the rest of.

            • Stovetop@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m guessing that it is probably them being comfortable with their niche, and they don’t think they can break into the YouTube model the same way YouTube couldn’t break into the Twitch model with YouTube Gaming (#killedbygoogle)

        • ours@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          They already make a killing with their cloud with much less business risk in the form of AWS.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Maybe. But give decentralised federated hosting a few years. It might never be a rival but it’s possible it will become a viable alternative.

        • Chozo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          If PeerTube can fix their major discoverability issues, it can potentially pose a real threat to YouTube. But that’s the biggest thing keeping it back right now, is that it’s impossible to just find anything you want to watch.

          Unless you want to watch hour-long seminars on Linux. In which case, PeerTube’s got you covered.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think discoverability is in its infancy for the fediverse in general.

            But I’m old enough to remember when vast tracts of the internet were hard to find and everyone used directories. When that changed, everyone jumped online.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yet there is a gazillion of porn sites out there. The thing is, once YouTube become shitty enough its users are itching to find an alternative, porn operators like MindGeek might launch a competitor site because they’re already have a scalable video delivery service. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re already working on it.

        • CoderKat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s not really a technical problem anymore. Which isn’t to say it’s easy to run such a site, but rather to stress that YouTube is like a social media site. The value is in the users (and the content that they create and consume). You could make a perfect YouTube clone, but good luck getting people to use it when their favourite creators don’t. And good luck getting creators to care when the users aren’t there.

          And Lemmy is misleading. Most people don’t use Firefox. Heck, most people don’t seem to even use ad blockers.

    • DeathWearsANecktie
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s funny too because ads literally are a 5 second delay (at least) that you get when you dont use an adblocker!

        • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          1 year ago

          Same. Give me the delay. At least I know that’s only five seconds, as opposed to a ten-second unskippable ad followed by another ad that I can skip after five seconds.

          • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re absolutely right, but we haven’t even touched on the worst part of ads, which is how they utterly poison your brain with annoying jingles, annoying colors, and stupid catch-phrases, all psychologically engineered to get stuck in your head.

            And let’s not even go into how they prey on your fears and insecurities, or deceive you into thinking you need things that you actually don’t. How they prey on vulnerable children, or the elderly, or brainwash small children into manipulating their parents against their best interests. Or how privacy has been shredded since the advent of behavioral tracking.

            I’m not exaggerating at all when I say that advertising is one of the world’s biggest psychological hazards. I would rather sit in an empty room with no stimulation whatsoever than let that poison into my brain.

          • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If I see an unskippable ad, I like to play the game “Roll the dice until Youtube gives up”. Hit the refresh key until it gives me the correct video length. Devalues Youtube’s ad product and costs YouTube more.

        • DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          At some point Hulu did that - just like three, thirty-second blocks of silent ‘shame on you for ad blocking!’ I totally preferred that to ads…

          Now I just don’t use Hulu?

          • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ah, the good old days. Put on your show, get up and grab your snack/drink, come back just in time for the show to start, no ads the rest of the way

            And even before that when adblockers just straight up worked on Hulu no shame screens to be found

    • cobysev@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve been using Nebula. It’s a subscription-based alternative with no advertising, but I get it for free because I’m subscribed to Curiosity Stream (which is basically Netflix, but for documentaries).

      The only downside to Nebula is that there aren’t a lot of content creators on it, so you don’t have the variety of videos that YouTube offers.

      • CoderKat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The captions suck too. I subscribed to the same deal as you. I did it mostly to support the creators. But I basically never use it. The creator whose affiliate link I used to sign up? Their own captions are amazing on YouTube (human written with colour and positioning) and auto generated garbage on Nebula.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m still waiting for MindGeek to launch an SFW version of pornhub to compete with YouTube. If YouTube keeps getting shittier, they might eventually do it.

    • metaStatic@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Turns out people don’t want to compete with something that runs at a loss. and as soon as someone figures out how Google will just copy them with a massive infrastructure lead.

    • mesamune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Peertube is almost there. Just needs a good server really, most of the servers are too small for the market share. Or at least fit the general public, I’m loving it ATM.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of the people saying “I’d rather wait five seconds than watch an ad” seem to be optimistic that it will continue to be 5 seconds and YouTube won’t keep upping it.

    • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they can’t extend it longer than the shortest ads, since then it’ll affect users after they watch ads too, which kinda defeats the point

      • aidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly, so this still guarantees a better experience than ad viewers because you will always have the minimum ad length

    • gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Honestly, worst case scenario, if YouTube manages to completely eliminate adblockers, maybe by making some kind of cryptographic system where the browser has to provide a token embedded inside the ad video stream in order to access the video, I would still use an extension to mute sound and draw a black bar over the ads while technically playing them in the background, it’s not the wait time that bothers me, it’s how repetitive and obnoxious the ads are, I just don’t want to perceive them.

      • Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is why you have to void warranties and go through a lot of hassle to r Unlock the bootloader, or root your own phone and have actual control over it.

        And that’s the reason Google is trying to push shitty web standards to remove your control.

        And why Apple and Microsoft keep restricting your access to your OS, with rumors of Windows 12 being cloud-only.

        Many governments around the world don’t want you to have any control or privacy. Many tech giants don’t want you to have any control or privacy. It’s the same old thing religions have done forever. Enforce a lack of control and privacy through violence, social pressure, or resources. Only now, the enforcement style is indirect, trying to say you don’t own your device, can’t use ad blockers or privacy tools, have to agree to terms and conditions that waive your rights, your usage has to be monitored, or that backdoors have to be built into everything.

        Don’t expect this behavior to stop unless regulation is created to prevent it, or the company caves to financial or social pressure to change…for now.

        Don’t expect regulation to be created unless you put people who care about privacy and such in power.

        Even then, people in power need to be held accountable if they misbehave, or nothing else matters.

        It all comes back to class struggle and politics.

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Which color hat did the extra in the background of your latest ad wear?” Wrong answer = 10 ads.

        If they could, YouTube would hire someone to sit on your couch and make sure you consume the ads with your utmost attention.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll take 20 minutes of silence over 1 second of ads. I will never willingly watch an ad I didn’t explicitly request. Ever.

      Life is short and I won’t devote any of it to advertisements.

      That being said, I do pay for YouTube premium because I do use it a lot and understand that the platform has every right to make money. But that makes what they’re doing with Firefox and ad blockers worse.

    • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ads are psychological abuse. I will not watch them. If YouTube make it too hard to use their service without watching ads, I don’t need to use YouTube.

  • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why I refuse to pay for YouTube. They are literally actively making the experience worse, rather than trying to make the paid experience better. This is laughable.

      • snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Guess they’ll have to do a better job at convincing me that I should pay for what’s historically been free. I’ve never tolerated ads and I’m not about to start. At this point they’re encouraging me to carry on out of spite, underhanded tactics are just giving me more reasons not to do what they want.

        • etrotta@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          You realize that they are only able to pay for “what’s historically been free” because of advertisements right? Google might be able to sustain Youtube even without ads because they have other revenue sources, but the vast majority of their revenue are from advertisements, and it would be a massive loss of money to keep Youtube up without it generating ad revenue. Hosting videos is one of the most expensive things a website can do. If we are to ever hope for other companies to compete with Youtube, we should expect for it to not be free. All that said, Google can still go fuck themselves though - I cannot possibly endorse their methods.

          • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yes, I do realize how terribly expensive hosting videos is. It doesn’t change my stance as a customer/end user, however.

          • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dude you are the product. Or do you think that they didn’t build your profile based on your experiences and tastes and then sold it to other companies…

            Wow someone hasn’t understood how the internet works

      • C_M@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Same holds for YouTube. They just got rid of the only no ads subscription here. Which was half the price of premium. So they kick people out of that, and afterwards going to war with ad blockers… If they really wanted as much people as possible to pay, they would have kept that abbo. But probably it’s better for them financially to have a bit more with ad blockers and ads and convert some to the premium tier

      • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No, I think it’s a reasonable stance. I pay for Crunchyroll and Hidive because I like the paid service they provide, it’s a good experience that they are providing and I find value in it. Why would I pay for something that I don’t find value in, something where a company tries to actively downgrade the experience of its users rather than try to upgrade the experience of its paid service? I like services where they don’t try to actively screw over their users. I pay for Lastfm and Trakt too, because again I like the paid service that they provide.

      • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Look, I think YouTube is one of the few major “social media” sites that net positive for social good. And it loses Google money every year with saving everyone’s videos forever and hosting 4k and even 8k content…

        But you can’t withhold the carrot and use the stick. They’re eroding trust with the people that have liked and supported YouTube throughout the years. There are plenty of people like me, that would gladly pay some amount of money. Just not THAT amount of money. Create some payment tiers and decent benefits for climbing up it.

  • pirrrrrrrr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “supposed to”

    Oopsie whoopsy, we accidentally made competing browsers disadvantaged.

    Deliberate, disguised as accidental. Disgusting.

  • Alien Nathan Edward
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    82
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We know you didn’t do anything wrong. We meant to hurt someone else.”

    Normally this is when I’d go all yar har fiddle dee dee, and don’t get me wrong Imma do a lot of that too, but a lot of my favorite video essay nerds are also on a platform called Nebula that’s dirt cheap, ad free and owned outright by the people who make the content. It’s a good way to balance the whole “people need to get paid for the content they make” thing with the whole “these platforms are predatory and abusive” thing.

    • Rooskie91@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nebula will also sell lifetime subscriptions for $300 occasionally. When you compare it to netflix’s standard price of $15.49/month, it pays for itself in less than 2 years.

    • Eylrid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I admire their mission. Giving the power to the video creators is great. I’m all for coops. But, as a user I find it lacking. If you want to watch anything outside of educational videos and video essays you have to go elsewhere. It doesn’t have very good content discovery. I know creators don’t like chasing an algorithm, but as a viewer I like having recommendations based on what I watch.

      I bought a one year membership, because I support what they are trying to do, but I rarely watch anything on it.

  • nfsu2@feddit.cl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I do not think Google deserves the benefit of the doubt anymore, people need to stop using their services.

    • PizzaMan
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      1 year ago

      No ads or delays > No ads with delays >>>>>> ads

    • Wes_Dev@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Honestly, as long as the video itself doesn’t have interruptions, I’m okay with the ad-free experience having a small delay or even lower video resolution. I don’t have to have 4k 120 FPS video on everything.

      What I don’t want is constant interruptions, wild changes in emotional tone or volume, obnoxious and manipulative ads, politically sponsored bullshit, or constant pestering to disable my ad blocker and tracking protection. In short, once the video starts, leave me alone.

      I can appreciate that Google has spent its entire existence trying to find another revenue stream beyond advertising, and largely failed, but I don’t care. If my choices are to continue being manipulated and lied to by companies and politicians paying for the privilege, and not using YouTube, I’ll just stop using YouTube. I’ve done it before with other services I used much more frequently.

      Either they shut up about using ad blockers, or they give me an alternative.

      And yes, I realize this is a very selfish and entitled response. If I get value out of something that costs other people time and money to provide me, it is fair that I give back in some way. Traditionally, that was done via companies serving ads and spying on its users.

      But enough is enough. Modern advertising and tracking keep getting worse, and trying to enforce them is not the way to move forward.