this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
699 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59605 readers
3501 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And that’s when I moved to Invidious and haven’t looked back
What makes you think they won't block them or force ads to them as well?
You do know that Invidious is still YouTube, right?
It’s an open source front end to youtube, yes. So no ads on the sidebar, no bullshit about logging in, no garbage algorithm to be harassed by.
And no commercials yet. If YT streams the ads and invidious doesn’t block them and adblocker doesn’t block them and PiHole doesn’t block them, I will not watch them.
Death to Advertisement.
I don't think YouTube cares if you refuses to watch their videos on another platform or not.
They probably prefer if you didn't. You only cost them money with no revenue whatsoever.
They are still a metric they can peddle to their advertisers to show "how many people see this ad in a month."
You don't think they know how many watch their videos with adblockers or third party clients?
I highly doubt they accept views from third party clients as valid ad views or probably views at all since that would likely make abuse easier.
It still goes to active user counts though. There will still be a footprint left by any view and that can be marketed as "we have X million users daily!"
I doubt the really big advertisers (the only ones that maybe can negotiate) think that's enough statistics.
Again, the point is that those accounts are still users that can be pointed out as such for all to see. Remember: a youtube account is just a Google account.
One could argue that youtube is a highly effective loss leader - people get into the Google ecosystem because of making an account to subscribe to their favorite content creators. Now Google has data they can sell, and metrics for advertisers to go "I see 18-30 year old white guys who watch things about X are likely to respond positively to things about Y." The algorithm, even without advertisements, is constantly building a profile of every user.
I don't use third party clients but I thought that the entire point of them was that you don't use an account.
There is still a footprint of "person is watching X, then they go to Y" with or without an account by my understanding.
Its less valuable data, sure, but it all feeds thr algorithm
Maybe, it would depend on how the front ends work with how they get content and so on.
Either way I doubt they care much about that data. I would bet they would bet they would rather get rid of those users.
The effort/cost expended to go after a tiny group of people vs the amount of money generated/saved from stopping them was (and probably still is) not worth it. There just aren't that many people who use 3rd party services without accounts.
I'll download it so I can skip the bullshit if it comes down to it.