• EdyBolos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Fuck Google and YouTube, but the title is misleading, and it’s an article from three weeks ago. I’m quite surprised that this post is so upvoted, and nobody else flagged this before.

    • voracitude@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Genuine question (because I’m looking too): without YouTube, where would you go to watch all the diverse videos they host? It’s a really difficult business model. Look at how expensive Floatplane is to the user. Luke and Linus have talked about how difficult it is to run on WAN Show, too: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1mZrsunukUA

      A fediverse platform would almost definitely be a worse experience in terms of speed and video quality because residential internet (at least in the majority of the US) just doesn’t have the upload to support multiple HD video streams. Therefore, it’s not really possible to host at home; a basic server at Hetzner could probably do a dozen or two direct streams with no conversion, but storage is kind of expensive just because there’s so much content, and then there’s the need for moderation, high uptime, security, “good” UX design…

      Then of course on top of all that when you don’t have creators getting paid by ad revenue, fewer will be able to spend the time on production quality because they’ll be doing it after work, so the length and/or quality suffers.

      I dunno dude, I really hope someone smarter than me has figured this out, but it’s a tough problem.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are correct. Fundamentally, it’s the hosting and storage issue that’s the crux of all this.

        And the only choices available are another corporation hosting and paying/passing on the cost, or all of us hosting on a peer-to-peer network, which will be slow, but doable.

        Having said that, the peer hosting method would work though, and shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. We just shouldn’t expect the same level of service we do from YouTube or any corporation hosting videos.

  • namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    However bad they may make it, it can’t possibly be worse than it is for non-adblock users.

    But hey, if they want to torpedo their own services, have at it. It’s not like they have a reputation for it or anything…

      • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wonder why they would kill old videos instead of just removing those 10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches. You’d think those giant loop videos would be taking up far more space.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          10-hour plus loops of the same song over and over again that nobody watches.

          I tend to fall asleep to one of those videos of being on the beach with ocean sounds, so /shrug.

  • Synthead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Whatever happens on my browser is client side, which is hardware and software I own. I can make what I own do what I want. It’s a right.

    It’s like Google saying that I can’t skim a magazine in my home, and that I must read the ads. Google can do what they want server-side, and I’ll do what I want client-side.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      And as a service provider, they can choose to degrade your experience. It goes both ways.

      • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Except they want to send you videos. The power is with you, the viewer. Without you, advertisers will have no reason for buying ads. Google can’t collect your data either. Realise that you have this power. Youtube is not like electricity or clean water. We can live without it if push comes to the shove.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

            When you take your comment to its logical end though your comment makes no sense, as hence there’s now no one to watch the videos and earn money from them doing so.

            You can’t force someone to consume your content, and if you earn money by people consuming your content, then the power is ultimately with them.

            Plus, all this discussion, we’re assuming that serving ads is the only way that Google can make money off you when watching the videos, which is not true. They can do the same kind of things they do with Gmail and make money from that.

            • cole@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

                That’s why I said logical conclusion.

                My bet would be the vast majority of people (what you call leeches) would eventually use ad blockers, as people in general usually do not like to watch commercials. (Again, speaking in endgame scenarios, AKA ‘logical conclusion’).

  • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    As a Premium user who still had uBlock installed, I was noticing the other day a loading problem when I had it activated until I deactivated and reloaded. Still, Google is entirely within it’s right to target people even according to one of its greatest critics: https://youtu.be/KMLMQRS3Krk?t=175

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Still, Google is entirely within it’s right to target people even according to one of its greatest critics:

      [Citation required.]

      Could you give us a timestamp of when he says that?

  • Cagi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Remember when every billionaire apologist was telling us how no one would do shit like this when net neutrality was being gutted?

    • alekwithak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Not just YouTube. Now I have to say I’m not a robot when searching from my phone because I dare use a VPN that’s not theirs.

        • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Do you know the old saying:
          if privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy.

          Just because people might do stuff with things that isn’t intended or even illegal doesn’t mean you should be banning said things.
          Otherwise we’d be in a world where we have no kitchen knives, axes, wrenches, food, money, cars, planes, ships, bikes, hands, feet - you know what I mean?