• umbrella@lemmy.ml
    1921·
    29 days ago

    adblock plus is shilled and lets ads through.

    ublock origin, folks. and firefox, because adblocking wont work on chromium anymore.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    2710·
    29 days ago

    Or… do both. Buy premium because you are actually getting something for your money… a platform. And support ad blockers to stop the ads where the product is just a webpage.

    • Lemmy Reddit That@lemmy.world
      3·
      28 days ago

      I would pay, if they would offer family pack in our country, but they don’t. Netflix is cheaper for me, I have Premium plan for 10€, and I am splitting the bill with my sister, so I only pay 5€ per month. I am not paying more than that for a YouTube.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      286·
      29 days ago

      Yeah. I’m actually okay with paying for a service I use daily. Google does a bunch of evil shit to drive its advertising business, but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

      We can pay with money or we can pay with ads and personal data.

      What I would like to see is a law banning data collection for paid accounts. Because right now Google datarapes you even when you pay.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        3·
        28 days ago

        Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          2·
          28 days ago

          I’d imagine there’s a point where the money from subscriptions is greater than the money from advertising and data hoarding.

          The “unreasonably high” prices should be self-solving in that context, because the company won’t make more money by selling ads for less than the price of a subscription.

          In fact, in order to justify raising the prices too much they’d have to change more for the ads, which in turn would hurt the ad industry by reducing the ROI in marketing.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        121·
        29 days ago

        A privacy law that only works for paying customers? I think we can do far better than that.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          77·
          29 days ago

          The economic reality is not everything can be free for everyone. Privacy is the price people pay to have “free” access to services.

          But right now, even those who pay to skip ads or have additional features on a service are still being mined for data.

          • Doomsider@lemmy.world
            3·
            28 days ago

            I deny your economic reality. There is no reason social media needs to charge. It can be run purely on volunteers and donations. It may not be able to be as big as FB but that is okay. We don’t need giant multimedia companies running social media anyways.

            We need strong privacy protections for everyone, not just paying customers. It is time to put an end to targeted advertising.

            • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
              11·
              28 days ago

              We’re talking about video hosting here. For a hosting site like YouTube that’s several petabytes of new storage added every day assuming no duplicates or backups of anything, plus the bandwidth, overhead, staffing, and more.

              A project of that scale can’t be done by volunteer hobbyists with no money. What you’re asking for is for other people to work and spend billions annually without any expectation of compensation for just your entertainment, and you aren’t entitled to that.

              • Doomsider@lemmy.world
                2·
                27 days ago

                Your inability to see the Internet as a distributed resource is astounding considering it’s purpose. I will repeat what I said before there is no reason social media can’t be done without the corporations controlling everything.

                You can easily host your own videos, if everyone did and we used advanced sharing protocols the load can be distributed. The more people watching the more bandwidth.

                You have become brainwashed into believing only YouTube can exist. You have bought into it so bad you think someone who wants your rights and privacy protected is a free loader.

                We can do at all without them. There is something wrong and perverse about a single entity controlling that much of our culture. Too big to fail you say, I say too big to care about what really matters.

                • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  27 days ago

                  Okay, let’s go with your idea that everybody has the knowledge and hardware retired to self-host.

                  What happens when Grandma’s cute video she uploaded goes viral and 11 million people try to watch it in a 24hr period? Would we rather it simply didn’t work, or does grandma get an unexpected $7,000 bill?

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          81·
          28 days ago

          Good loving people pay for it because they want it to be available to everyone in the world and it’s running costs are pretty low.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          4·
          28 days ago

          Wikipedia isn’t video hosting. The angles of nenual hosting cost for Wikipedia is around 3 million a year. YouTube probably costs nearly as much per hour to keep running.

          500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. That’s gonna be like 60 terrabytes every hour just in storage space increases.

          If you were to try and host that on a cloud server like AWS the cost would increase millions of dollars every day. Google self-hosted, but it’s still unfathomingly expensive. There’s still questions over whether YouTube profitable even with all the ads and the subscriptions.

      • amorangi@lemmy.nz
        242·
        28 days ago

        but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

        Youtube gained its market share and stopped any competitors arising by offering a free video platform. Now that there isn’t much hope for competition they have enshitified, plastering ads and demanding money. They endured massive loses for years just to kill competition. So boo fucking hoo when I continue using a monopolists products on the terms they originally offered.

      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        5·
        28 days ago

        Exactly this. Funding google is a bad investment. Exactly like the comic says, give it to someone who will improve your life.

  • Asafum@feddit.nl
    14·
    29 days ago

    I don’t believe for one single second that this will stay ad free. YouTube will eventually do like all the assholes do and have a tiered system where the first tier is simply less ads not none.

    • Feydaikin@beehaw.org
      4·
      28 days ago

      Yep, eventually ads will creep their way into the payed system.

      At the end of the day, there’s no such thing as enough money for corporations.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      3·
      28 days ago

      Even when you aren’t seeing ads their algorithm is still controlling your front page, allowing them to push partner content that isn’t directly advertising but still acts like it. The differences between a commercial for Doritos and an episode of Good Mythical Morning titled “Trying Every Doritos Flavor” from the perspective of the PepsiCo marketing department are that people might willingly click on the GMM video and they probably didn’t even have to pay anyone for the video to happen.
      Sure Rhett & Link may not have a partnership with Pepsi and are just innocently making content to give their audience (I genuinely believe this), so they’ve got no part in this becoming advertising, but you would have to be incredibly naïve to believe that Google’s algorithm isn’t smart enough to recognize that video and others like it as marketable content the promotion of which can be sold to PepsiCo.

      Premium subscribers may not be seeing ads, but they are absolutely still seeing advertising.

      edit: typos

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        2·
        28 days ago

        That’s a good point, but to be honest even if those thumbnails were just straight up ads I’d be ok with that. I can simply not click on it. Having any kind of actual ad on a premium service is absolute bullshit though, that’s straight up greed…

        Hell as a free user I wouldn’t mind in the slightest having their segments: videos, segment for shorts, more videos, be broken up to have videos, ad banner, shorts, videos, and banner etc… don’t lock me into having to watch an ad but I do understand they need ad revenue and I don’t mind seeing the still image ads “of the past” (well past for me since I’ve used an ad blocker for-absolutly-ever now.)

  • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
    3121·
    29 days ago

    Not gonna lie, I bit the bullet and got YT Premium almost 5 years ago. Honestly, one of the best purchases I’ve ever made in my adult life, hands down

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      1·
      28 days ago

      Doesn’t seem like you bit any bullet, you just paid for your subscription giving money away. What’s the biting the bullet part for you?

      • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
        2·
        28 days ago

        Lol giving away money at all, especially to large monopolistic corporations like Google. They don’t need my money, they already have plenty

    • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      29 days ago

      I had Youtube premium when it included google play music. GPM was so good…

      I unsubscribed everything when they changed to youtube music. Terrible music platform

    • Xanis@lemmy.world
      6·
      29 days ago

      I’ve had it for AGES. I agree that ads have been a bit much and many websites almost unusable without Origin. YT Premium though has been fairly solid with a couple hiccups.

      Admittedly, I use YouTube as my primary source of entertainment. So the price is easily justified vs other services.

    • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
      5·
      29 days ago

      I agree with you but it made me physically nauseous to click the button because I remember a time when YouTube was awesome and free from ads.

      • TargaryenTKE@lemmy.world
        1·
        28 days ago

        Free (legal) movies. Most are stuff I don’t want to see anyway, but every once in a while a diamond in the rough pops up

        Edit: Like someone else mentioned, YT is my primary entertainment source for a few reasons, so I’ve definitely gotten my money’s worth. I wouldn’t recommend everyone get it, but I’m happy with my decision

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.worldEnglish
      115·
      29 days ago

      Agreed. Plus I know my views pay slightly more to creators than ad-supported views (and far more than ad-block views) so I can feel superior to my fellow man.

      • can@sh.itjust.works
        71·
        29 days ago

        You could use an ad blocker and give even more to the creators you like via Patreon (or ideally better means).

          • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
            2·
            28 days ago

            Porque YouTube/Google gana mucho más que el dueño del canal por esa transacción, además de que lo hace explotando a cientos de miles o millones de personas en el mundo que quieren vivir de influencers.

      • nexussapphire@lemm.eeEnglish
        72·
        29 days ago

        I think it’s worth it too. People are just weird about paying for a product that supports individuals creative ambitions just because a company takes a cut. Admittedly better content than streaming services most the time anyway.

      • glitches_brew@lemmy.world
        42·
        29 days ago

        I typically put children’s music on YouTube when driving with my kid. Not having to shuffle with the phone to skip ads while in the car is a life saver.

  • anonymous111@lemmy.world
    6·
    29 days ago

    Is there a wiki for the best way to block ads per device type?

    I’ve figures it out on Fire Stick (I know) and Firefox but I have no experience installing android apps via root or developer mode.

    • edinbruh@feddit.it
      7·
      29 days ago

      Use YouTube revanced. It’s an app that patches the official YouTube apk. Basically you provide the version of the apk it requires (the patcher will tell you), select which patches you want (you can put all of them and disable what you don’t need in the settings later) and if will create a new apk without ads that you can install

    • PinkyCoyote@sopuli.xyz
      4·
      29 days ago

      For android use either YouTube revanced or newpipe.

      Also there is the piracy megathread which will help you with that!

  • floridaman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    245·
    28 days ago

    I’m a GenZ-er, and I adblock everywhere I can. What makes the difference with YouTube premium for me is that I fall asleep to YouTube videos on a TV every night, and the advertisements alone can make that experience terrible because you can’t adblock YT on a TV as easily as elsewhere. Premium might be one of my best decisions I’ve made for a platform I spend so much time on. I still donate to Wikipedia and uBlock even if I pay the premium for other services.

    • 0x0@infosec.pub
      52·
      28 days ago

      Youtube premium makes sense for me when combined in a family account for 5 with youtube music for 17.5 USD in total.

      But besides that, fuck Google. Id pirate music if I wasn’t so lazy but Google diminishing anything of what I currently get would probably give me some energy.

    • Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world
      1·
      28 days ago

      I do the same, but it has to be on my phone, and last I checked that wasn’t an option with the screen off even with Premium. So I used Vanced (and now Revanced). I have moderate-to-severe tinnitus and this setup might have saved my life once or twice.

      • floridaman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        1·
        27 days ago

        Premium has background playback! I use it to listen to video essays with my phone in my pocket when I’m working, screen off. Revanced was my go-to before premium but it has been a pain for me to patch recently (I’m just lazy) so I’m just using stock YT with Premium.

    • Darkenfolk@dormi.zone
      8·
      28 days ago

      I’m a GenZ-er

      I fall asleep

      Typical genZ, getting those zzzz’s. That’s probably how they got the name.

    • Pueblo@feddit.org
      10·
      28 days ago

      Depents on your tv. There are good ways for some. S-tube next works for android tv for example, there is a way for webos too

  • Lucidity 🪷@lemmy.worldEnglish
    157·
    28 days ago

    I’m on it daily. A ton of hours between watching videos and enjoying the music catalogue. It’s definitely the only reason I don’t mind paying premium. No complaints.

  • umbraroze@lemmy.world
    9·
    28 days ago

    I’ll get YouTube premium once they fix their damn TV app.

    • If I resume playing a video from history, it often plays the ads, then re-plays them shortly after. (You know, at the point when it hit me with a fucking 55 second ad and I backed out and said fuck no, are you shitting me. Double points if the ad it tries to play again is also ridiculously long. I just keep refreshing it until it gives me 5 seconds to skip. I’m not much of a gambler, but this much I can gamble.)

    Admittedly, this bug is not applicable to Premium. Being ad-skippy and all. But it’s indicative of the overall quality of the app. For example:

    • When long-holding a video in all circumstances, I it should give me a full menu. Like, with the “go to the channel” option? …doesn’t give that to me in Subscriptions view. This might come as a surprise to YouTube, but I don’t always like watching Whatever The Algorithm Feeds Me. I might, you know, choose to watch the 10 episodes I missed. To do that, I need to actually like to go to the channel in question.
    • …Or any of the channels I like or are particularly interested at the moment. There’s no way to pin this shit either.
    • Speaking of which, the fucking way to browse my subscriptions is fucking atrocious holy shit. It’s useless. This is Google. They don’t do user experience research. They half-ass everything.
    • On my smart TV, sometimes the buttons just fuck up. Sometimes I can’t control this shit. Because my TV operating system was designed by particularly deranged people, they thought “closing” or “restarting” any given app was space technology that no average consumer can understand, so they reduced that to bare minimums: the only way to restart the app is to pull the plug. This is just fucking demeaning.

    A collaboration between Google and Samsung, people! Two giant corps serving millions of users! And they expect us to pay monthly fee for this holy shit

    …sorry for the rant.

    • dafo@lemmy.world
      2·
      27 days ago

      Tbf the only Android TV app I’ve used which is actually usable and has not-shit UX is SmartTube. Discovery Plus deserves a special place in hell.