9 ms·

If you continue to give Google money you'll continue to get things like AMP, Manifest V3, Web "Integrity", and whatever else they think up to track you across t

by sneak 3y ago

If you continue to give Google money you'll continue to get things like AMP, Manifest V3, Web "Integrity", and whatever else they think up to track you across the web. They're an ad company. They pay the creators per impression even if you block the ads. Blocking ads harms Google, not the content producers.

moonchrome 3y ago
No that's what you get when you're the product by being a free user. Paid service relationship works just fine for me - Google isn't ideal but YouTube is one of my main content sources + YouTube music for my family for slightly more than the price of Spotify family subscription - yeah it's an easy choice. Spotify suggestions and playlists weren't a seller feature for me for years. Maybe I'm missing out on a few podcasts.
- ohgodplsno 3y ago
  No, Google will keep fucking you over and destroying the Internet, whether you pay or not. Not to mention the fact that what they pay out to creators is absolutely pathetic. Go find their Patreon, their Ko-fi, hell their paypal, anything but giving Google 13 bucks. Adblocking Google is morally right.
  - Shekelphile 3y ago
    > Adblocking Google is morally right. All ads should be blocked. I do not consume ads, and am not interested in paying a ransom to hide them.
    - ddalex 3y ago
      If you don't consume ads, please do not use any ad-supported service, that's the easiest thing to do.
      - Shekelphile 3y ago
        No.
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No.
      - tnbp 3y ago
        lol no
      - kmbfjr 3y ago
        “Consume” ads? That is a quaint 1960’s take that is long dead. Ad companies have been tilting the agreement attention for content ever more in their favor in aggressive and privacy harming ways. They long ago broke any moral standing. The content creators need to seek a better deal, they’re getting screwed by Google too.
      - LocalH 3y ago
        I'd rather use their services and block their ads, if I'm honest. Ad supporters talk like blocking ads is literal theft, which is absolutely laughable. It's further away from theft than piracy, which is also in no way literal theft. If I'm watching traditional non-demand television, and I go to the bathroom or change the channel during an ad, am I stealing from the network or the show? Hell no, that's ridiculous.
        ddalex 3y ago
        Theft? Of course it's theft, if I reduce to what is happening - you're using their services for free with no compensation. That is the definition of theft. I would agree with you it's ok if there was no way to _otherwise_ pay for the service. If they push a only ads-supported version, and I have no choice but see ads, and I don't consent to the impact of ads on my brain, it makes a case for blocking ads being ethically correct. But since there is a choice on how to pay, I find reasoning is no longer ethically right. You can choice to pay with your attention and brain, or to pay with hard cold cash, so the argument of ads being shoved down your brain no longer holds. You can choose to not see ads and pay for the service, and you chose to steal. And you can make the argument that stealing is ok since you steal from the bad guys, but then you don't get to complain when others may steal from you - we're all "the bad guy" for somebody else
    - kibwen 3y ago
      Hear hear. I'm beyond tired of all these self-proclaimed hackers with their lips so far up Google's ass that they can taste what Sundar had for breakfast. The ad industry is a scourge on humanity, and its gormless defenders are willing accomplices.
  - ddalex 3y ago
    Wouldn't be not using Google at all the morally right choice ?
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      It would be, if Google didn't have a chokehold on most of the internet. Sure, Nebula exists, I can watch three creators there, woohoo. Let me go on Dailymotion too for those sweet 2005 videos. Google did everything in their power to force themselves into every aspect of our lives and leaving no alternatives, or destroying them, or buying them. Now they get to deal with the consequences
    - kibwen 3y ago
      The morally right choice would be for the government to use antitrust regulation to break Google up into ten companies, and yet here we are.
  - moonchrome 3y ago
    Stop using Google if you want to promote alternatives. Otherwise you're just rationalising freeloader behaviour.
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not _rationalising_ freeloader behaviour. I'm saying Google _deserves_ to have freeloaders milking them for every bit they can. So does Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon...
      - montroser 3y ago
        And it's just a convenient consequence of doing the "morally right" thing, that you happen to get your content for free? And content creators be damned?
        ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No, I just happened to always have it for free. They are the ones that decided that it was a good deal in exchange for tracking me throughout the internet, stalking me. They are the ones that decided to make my watching experience miserable by putting unskippable ads. They are the ones that decided to make the videos I watch crap, because if they're not 10 minutes long with a perfectly engineered cover image, they won't pay out the creators and they won't show their content. They are the ones allowing literal hour-long ads. They are the ones that decided to make my home page """algorithmic""", which is really "oh you watched a video game ? Others like <literal nazi>, you should watch it". They are the ones hiding, destroying, trying to piss me off by removing features one by one and putting them into Youtube Premium. Play in background ? High quality videos ? Not stopping autoplay every 30 minutes to ask me if I'm still here ? Picture-in-picture ? Adding to queue ? These are all features that they proudly displayed in blog posts saying how awesome they are, and that it'll always be free. Now, they blast me with popups telling me to get Youtube Premium. One per person in my household by the way, account sharing is bad and they must extract as much money as possible. The content creators I support get their money on Patreon or whatever fundraising platforms they use. Same things for my favorite journals. The others ? Well, I don't care enough about them to think that I would pay for them. Maybe others will. And if they don't, well, they'll stop.
soraminazuki 3y ago
I just have no sympathy for the ad industry. I wouldn't have gotten into ad blocking if ads were non-intrusive, non-deceptive, and purely contextual. I used to even click on them more than a decade ago. But no, the ad industry wasn't satisfied with the money they were already making. They wanted to stalk you across the web and shove endless amounts of junk ads to uninterested people. The ad industry brought the current situation on to themselves.
jjallen 3y ago
I'm giving them money to view fewer ads. Isn't this an inherently "anti-ad" consumer standpoint? I am telling YT/Google that I as a consumer am willing to pay money to not see ads. Am I not telling them with my wallet to develop other ad-free solutions that I will pay them and the content creators money for? > They pay the creators per impression even if you block the ads. Blocking ads harms Google, not the content producers. Blocking ads and refusing to pay any money into the YT ecosystem decreases the revenue per viewer which will eventually reduce the amount of money YT pays to creators and/or increase the price they charge to YT premium subscribers.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  No, they're not going to leave money on the table. Eventually you'll be seeing ads too. This is just a hook period. I don't understand how we as a culture haven't learned this already. This is at least the fourth or fifth generation of this with media. How things actually work should be common sense by now.
  - Shekelphile 3y ago
    It seems to me that all of google's most successful services (search, youtube, gmail and gsuite, maps/earth, android) are next to impossible to monetize profitably and have significant utility to the general public. It feels like these are services that governments should be building and funding themselves. Youtube specifically has a plethora of useful information made by normal people. You can find hundreds of thousands of videos, in most languages, about doing most basic and complex repairs for almost any model of car made in the last few decades, for example. It is essentially a giant public library.
    - quickthrower2 3y ago
      I trust (with regards to privacy, censorship and bias) governments even less than Google to be honest.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
RALaBarge 3y ago
So if they were to stop, the crisis would be averted?
kmlx 3y ago
> They pay the creators per impression even if you block the ads. this is false. if they can’t show the ad they won’t pay the content creator.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Fortunately I bypass Google entirely and find ways of paying good creators, which ends up with more in their pocket and less in the pocket of one of the shittiest companies on earth.
thathndude 3y ago
Are any of the YouTube clones any good? I know Rumble has a bit of a reputation, but I like that it’s, generally a more hands-off environment. I agree with OP that the $13 I spend on YouTube is easy money. Would happily spend that amount or more on an alternative.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
The price they pay per impression is based on ad revenue, not pie in the sky...
- 418tpot 3y ago
  Do not confuse Google's revenue with market rate of an impression on YouTube. More revenue for Google does not equal higher pay for content creators. Google pays them the minimum to keep them on the platform. And that minimum is tiny since their platform is essentially a monopoly.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
emodendroket 3y ago
AMP was really good despite the complaints but they've already started backing away from it so you might want to update your list of bogeymen.

by sneak 3y ago

moonchrome 3y ago

No that's what you get when you're the product by being a free user. Paid service relationship works just fine for me - Google isn't ideal but YouTube is one of my main content sources + YouTube music for my family for slightly more than the price of Spotify family subscription - yeah it's an easy choice. Spotify suggestions and playlists weren't a seller feature for me for years. Maybe I'm missing out on a few podcasts.

ohgodplsno 3y ago
No, Google will keep fucking you over and destroying the Internet, whether you pay or not. Not to mention the fact that what they pay out to creators is absolutely pathetic. Go find their Patreon, their Ko-fi, hell their paypal, anything but giving Google 13 bucks. Adblocking Google is morally right.
- Shekelphile 3y ago
  > Adblocking Google is morally right. All ads should be blocked. I do not consume ads, and am not interested in paying a ransom to hide them.
  - ddalex 3y ago
    If you don't consume ads, please do not use any ad-supported service, that's the easiest thing to do.
    - Shekelphile 3y ago
      No.
    - ohgodplsno 3y ago
      No.
    - tnbp 3y ago
      lol no
    - kmbfjr 3y ago
      “Consume” ads? That is a quaint 1960’s take that is long dead. Ad companies have been tilting the agreement attention for content ever more in their favor in aggressive and privacy harming ways. They long ago broke any moral standing. The content creators need to seek a better deal, they’re getting screwed by Google too.
    - LocalH 3y ago
      I'd rather use their services and block their ads, if I'm honest. Ad supporters talk like blocking ads is literal theft, which is absolutely laughable. It's further away from theft than piracy, which is also in no way literal theft. If I'm watching traditional non-demand television, and I go to the bathroom or change the channel during an ad, am I stealing from the network or the show? Hell no, that's ridiculous.
      - ddalex 3y ago
        Theft? Of course it's theft, if I reduce to what is happening - you're using their services for free with no compensation. That is the definition of theft. I would agree with you it's ok if there was no way to _otherwise_ pay for the service. If they push a only ads-supported version, and I have no choice but see ads, and I don't consent to the impact of ads on my brain, it makes a case for blocking ads being ethically correct. But since there is a choice on how to pay, I find reasoning is no longer ethically right. You can choice to pay with your attention and brain, or to pay with hard cold cash, so the argument of ads being shoved down your brain no longer holds. You can choose to not see ads and pay for the service, and you chose to steal. And you can make the argument that stealing is ok since you steal from the bad guys, but then you don't get to complain when others may steal from you - we're all "the bad guy" for somebody else
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Hear hear. I'm beyond tired of all these self-proclaimed hackers with their lips so far up Google's ass that they can taste what Sundar had for breakfast. The ad industry is a scourge on humanity, and its gormless defenders are willing accomplices.
- ddalex 3y ago
  Wouldn't be not using Google at all the morally right choice ?
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    It would be, if Google didn't have a chokehold on most of the internet. Sure, Nebula exists, I can watch three creators there, woohoo. Let me go on Dailymotion too for those sweet 2005 videos. Google did everything in their power to force themselves into every aspect of our lives and leaving no alternatives, or destroying them, or buying them. Now they get to deal with the consequences
  - kibwen 3y ago
    The morally right choice would be for the government to use antitrust regulation to break Google up into ten companies, and yet here we are.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  Stop using Google if you want to promote alternatives. Otherwise you're just rationalising freeloader behaviour.
  - ohgodplsno 3y ago
    Oh no, don't get me wrong, I'm not _rationalising_ freeloader behaviour. I'm saying Google _deserves_ to have freeloaders milking them for every bit they can. So does Meta, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix, Amazon...
    - montroser 3y ago
      And it's just a convenient consequence of doing the "morally right" thing, that you happen to get your content for free? And content creators be damned?
      - ohgodplsno 3y ago
        No, I just happened to always have it for free. They are the ones that decided that it was a good deal in exchange for tracking me throughout the internet, stalking me. They are the ones that decided to make my watching experience miserable by putting unskippable ads. They are the ones that decided to make the videos I watch crap, because if they're not 10 minutes long with a perfectly engineered cover image, they won't pay out the creators and they won't show their content. They are the ones allowing literal hour-long ads. They are the ones that decided to make my home page """algorithmic""", which is really "oh you watched a video game ? Others like <literal nazi>, you should watch it". They are the ones hiding, destroying, trying to piss me off by removing features one by one and putting them into Youtube Premium. Play in background ? High quality videos ? Not stopping autoplay every 30 minutes to ask me if I'm still here ? Picture-in-picture ? Adding to queue ? These are all features that they proudly displayed in blog posts saying how awesome they are, and that it'll always be free. Now, they blast me with popups telling me to get Youtube Premium. One per person in my household by the way, account sharing is bad and they must extract as much money as possible. The content creators I support get their money on Patreon or whatever fundraising platforms they use. Same things for my favorite journals. The others ? Well, I don't care enough about them to think that I would pay for them. Maybe others will. And if they don't, well, they'll stop.

soraminazuki 3y ago

I just have no sympathy for the ad industry. I wouldn't have gotten into ad blocking if ads were non-intrusive, non-deceptive, and purely contextual. I used to even click on them more than a decade ago. But no, the ad industry wasn't satisfied with the money they were already making. They wanted to stalk you across the web and shove endless amounts of junk ads to uninterested people. The ad industry brought the current situation on to themselves.

jjallen 3y ago

I'm giving them money to view fewer ads. Isn't this an inherently "anti-ad" consumer standpoint? I am telling YT/Google that I as a consumer am willing to pay money to not see ads. Am I not telling them with my wallet to develop other ad-free solutions that I will pay them and the content creators money for? > They pay the creators per impression even if you block the ads. Blocking ads harms Google, not the content producers. Blocking ads and refusing to pay any money into the YT ecosystem decreases the revenue per viewer which will eventually reduce the amount of money YT pays to creators and/or increase the price they charge to YT premium subscribers.

guerrilla 3y ago
No, they're not going to leave money on the table. Eventually you'll be seeing ads too. This is just a hook period. I don't understand how we as a culture haven't learned this already. This is at least the fourth or fifth generation of this with media. How things actually work should be common sense by now.
- Shekelphile 3y ago
  It seems to me that all of google's most successful services (search, youtube, gmail and gsuite, maps/earth, android) are next to impossible to monetize profitably and have significant utility to the general public. It feels like these are services that governments should be building and funding themselves. Youtube specifically has a plethora of useful information made by normal people. You can find hundreds of thousands of videos, in most languages, about doing most basic and complex repairs for almost any model of car made in the last few decades, for example. It is essentially a giant public library.
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    I trust (with regards to privacy, censorship and bias) governments even less than Google to be honest.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago

RALaBarge 3y ago

So if they were to stop, the crisis would be averted?

kmlx 3y ago

> They pay the creators per impression even if you block the ads. this is false. if they can’t show the ad they won’t pay the content creator.

kibwen 3y ago
Fortunately I bypass Google entirely and find ways of paying good creators, which ends up with more in their pocket and less in the pocket of one of the shittiest companies on earth.

thathndude 3y ago

Are any of the YouTube clones any good? I know Rumble has a bit of a reputation, but I like that it’s, generally a more hands-off environment. I agree with OP that the $13 I spend on YouTube is easy money. Would happily spend that amount or more on an alternative.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

The price they pay per impression is based on ad revenue, not pie in the sky...

418tpot 3y ago
Do not confuse Google's revenue with market rate of an impression on YouTube. More revenue for Google does not equal higher pay for content creators. Google pays them the minimum to keep them on the platform. And that minimum is tiny since their platform is essentially a monopoly.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

emodendroket 3y ago

AMP was really good despite the complaints but they've already started backing away from it so you might want to update your list of bogeymen.