I really don’t think it’s greed.
Can’t blame em for trying to win the cat/mouse game of adblocking.
I’m sure it’s not the end of the world, and new ways to circumvent this will show up.
while i agree to some extent it never been that aggressive before, have you heard that dial-er and SMS apps are no longer included in the android open source stock making it bit harder for custom roms maintainers
I heard about this too, it’s a really rough one. Removing essential mobile phone functionality from a mobile OS’ source code makes no sense to me at all
Google wants to maintain control of Android. In theory, Android is open source. However, Google doesn’t want the open source bits to be enough to create a competitor.
While I agree in theory, Youtube has been a money pit for Google for its entire existence. It feels a little odd for them to suddenly start caring now.
Beyond that, I’ve seen a lot of discussion lately about how ads have gotten worse over time, and I agree. The old, entirely text, adwords ads that didn’t try to masquerade as content are one thing. I’d be a lot more likely to allow that type. Instead, most ads now are obnoxious video, animated, scroll highjacking, etc. We’ve entered a crappy feedback loop where ads aren’t as effective, so companies are more likely to make obnoxious ads to get the most ROI, so people who might use adblockers are more likely to use them to try and preserve a smooth browsing experience.
There’s also an argument to be made that despite the absurd amount of data collection going on, ad targeting is still pretty shitty. If I was getting ads for things I was interested in, I might be more likely to allow them.
Ultimately I think the genie is out of the bottle on this. People who are likely to use ad blockers aren’t likely to change without a large overhaul in the ad industry, and the ad industry can’t afford to make those changes while still maintaining profits.
All internet companies have been caring a lot more about service profitability since the rise in interest rates. Unprofitable companies are scrambling to make money and profitable companies are killing divisions that don’t have a clear path to profitably.
The Internet being so abundant that everything would be free hasn’t really come about. The costs to serve a video may be fractions of a cent, but it is still not something you can round to zero yet.
Well, that’s not in YouTube’s interest, so I don’t know how you can blame them for not being publicly owned.
If it somehow magically becomes publicly owned, your bills/taxes will reflect that (as they do with TV in many countries, it just gets added to the monthly electricity bill, whether you use it or not).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
I really don’t think it’s greed. Can’t blame em for trying to win the cat/mouse game of adblocking. I’m sure it’s not the end of the world, and new ways to circumvent this will show up.
while i agree to some extent it never been that aggressive before, have you heard that dial-er and SMS apps are no longer included in the android open source stock making it bit harder for custom roms maintainers
I heard about this too, it’s a really rough one. Removing essential mobile phone functionality from a mobile OS’ source code makes no sense to me at all
that is just causing a problem and selling the solution
Google wants to maintain control of Android. In theory, Android is open source. However, Google doesn’t want the open source bits to be enough to create a competitor.
While I agree in theory, Youtube has been a money pit for Google for its entire existence. It feels a little odd for them to suddenly start caring now.
Beyond that, I’ve seen a lot of discussion lately about how ads have gotten worse over time, and I agree. The old, entirely text, adwords ads that didn’t try to masquerade as content are one thing. I’d be a lot more likely to allow that type. Instead, most ads now are obnoxious video, animated, scroll highjacking, etc. We’ve entered a crappy feedback loop where ads aren’t as effective, so companies are more likely to make obnoxious ads to get the most ROI, so people who might use adblockers are more likely to use them to try and preserve a smooth browsing experience.
There’s also an argument to be made that despite the absurd amount of data collection going on, ad targeting is still pretty shitty. If I was getting ads for things I was interested in, I might be more likely to allow them.
Ultimately I think the genie is out of the bottle on this. People who are likely to use ad blockers aren’t likely to change without a large overhaul in the ad industry, and the ad industry can’t afford to make those changes while still maintaining profits.
All internet companies have been caring a lot more about service profitability since the rise in interest rates. Unprofitable companies are scrambling to make money and profitable companies are killing divisions that don’t have a clear path to profitably.
The Internet being so abundant that everything would be free hasn’t really come about. The costs to serve a video may be fractions of a cent, but it is still not something you can round to zero yet.
I’ve been using a variety of LibreTube and revanced on my phone and tablet as I only have mobile devices.
For the first time I opened a link which went to the native app, OMG it is unusable with ads.
If that’s the expected way of using YouTube then I’m out, especially as I live in a location where I can’t pay for Premium even if I wanted to
IDK; I blame them.
YouTube has become part of the world’s social infrastructure. In a way, it is the town square.
Frankly it should be publicly owned.
Well, that’s not in YouTube’s interest, so I don’t know how you can blame them for not being publicly owned.
If it somehow magically becomes publicly owned, your bills/taxes will reflect that (as they do with TV in many countries, it just gets added to the monthly electricity bill, whether you use it or not).
Okay. I can dig a publicly owned YouTube.
Are you willing to spend your tax dollars hosting flat earth content?
Far right? Thinly disguised racism?
It’s ironic: but at least by paying based on what is watched, you give money to those you consume.
We can pay for it by eating just a few of the rich.
I also don’t understand how anyone can be offended by this. Keeping YT running no doubt is quite expensive.