this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
10 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72315 readers
2786 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Cagi@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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

[–] yiliu@informis.land 1 points 2 years ago

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Google is not an ISP. With or without net neutrality, Google could fuck with YouTube users.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

This is because scammers and criminals often use VPNs. They actually should be doing that.

[–] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] CthuluVoIP@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago
[–] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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?

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They're not saying you can't have an adblocker. They're saying their software will try not to serve you their data if you do, or at least make it inconvenient.

You have a right to your computer. You do not have a right to their service.

[–] Synthead@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's exactly what I said, yeah

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Me after reading the 1st comment: "OK. True. Fair." Me after reading the 2nd comment: "OK. True. Fair." Me after reading the 3rd comment: "OK. Also true. Also fair."

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

There was a rabbi arbitrating a dispute between neighbours. One of them complained that the other one gathers apples that fall off his apple tree and into the other neighbour's garden. "Those are my apples grown on my tree. He's stealing them!"

"You're right," says the rabbi. But the other neighbour counters.

"But the branches of the tree are above my property. If he doesn't want them to fall on my garden, he can cut off the branch. But he lets them fall into my garden making them my apples."

"You're right," says the rabbi and adjourns the diapute to be able to think about it. He's at his wit's end and tells the whole story to his wife when he gets home.

"That doesn't make sense. They can't both be right."

"You're right."

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If the service degrades to far due to using ad blockers then I'll just stop watching anything on YouTube. Easy.

[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Umm, ok. You were not making them any money before, when you were blocking their ads, why would they care if you left?

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

deleted by creator

[–] Chickenstalker@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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').

[–] namingthingsiseasy@programming.dev 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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....

[–] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

i am more worried about the old videos wipe thats coming soon

Sooo many peoples uploaded memories and documentaries are going to becone lost forever

[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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.

[–] EdyBolos@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years 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.

[–] mawkishdave@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And freetube is making it so much better.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Something I didn't even realize I wanted was to not have some eyeball-pulling algorithm recommending things to me. It's lovely.

[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yep. Personally use Piped, but it's the same idea. It basically saves me hours of watching useless videos everyday.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Now if only Piped wouldn't error out and be unusable for 10 minutes at a time every couple hours...

[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It doesn't for me, though.

[–] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I have been trying to figure out why since I started using it... searches spin forever, videos spin forever, some videos just spit "Error 1003" immediately, and then they become accessible 10 minutes later. I even tried filing an issue to no avail. I may end up looking for other alternatives.

[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 2 years ago

Have you tried changing the instances? Some instances simply perform better than others.

[–] z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

*Laughs with RSS feeds, Invidious redirects, Newpipe and Sponsorblock.