6 ms·

Youtube seems to me to be a bullshit test platform. They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to

Youtube seems to me to be a bullshit test platform. They will work around ad blockers and continue to pile on repetitive and banal adverts that have nothing to do with the user until they reach breaking point (where people flee and seek alternatives), and then they will relax their system to show marginally less bullshit. The confusing part of this battle is the app users, who do not agree with the avalanche of adverts, don't want to pay to scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears, and cannot kick the awful habit.

cm2187 3y ago
I don’t know. When youtube bypassed adblockers on iOS, I found it quite natural to break that habit and stop using youtube. I stopped watching TV 20 years ago, I have been using ad blockers as soon as they were introduced. The habit of not having to sit and watch some commercials is the most entrenched one in me. Hard to reverse a 20y habit.
msp26 3y ago
I still can't believe there wasn't greater pushback to the removal of visible dislikes. They were incredibly useful as a quick indicator to see if something might be wrong with a video.
rtsil 3y ago
This could be simply a coincidence, but it's possible they already relax their system based on user behavior. I used to watch YT through the TV app until the ads became insanely outrageous (six unskippable ads for a 10 min video, including two ads one minute after the video has started). Then I just bought a mini pc and plugged it in the TV and everything was fine (except for HDR that for some reason doesn't work) and without ads. Then a couple of weeks ago I opened the YT app on TV and it was actually a much better experience than before: skippable ads, no ads on some videos. As if they're trying to lure me to use it again.
- wimp 3y ago
  They are definitely A/B testing ad tolerance. I reset the TV app whenever the ads become unreasonable, and every time I do that, the skip ads button reverts back to the original style (skip all ads after 5 seconds). But if I login to an account, or use an anonymous session for long enough, the skip ads button will switch to the progress ring style, with 60+ seconds of unskippable ads. When that happens, I reset the app again.
miki123211 3y ago
Video hosting is expensive and needs to be paid for somehow. Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does. You can go the Nebula route and require users to pay (which means far fewer users) or require creators to pay (which means far fewer creators). You could also require creators to host the videos themselves, but that also requires money, expertise and causes downtime when a video goes viral. There's also P2P, but far too many users are on mobile and behind NATs these days for that to make sense. Even if this wasn't the case, P2P is a privacy and legal nightmare, it's trivial for companies to track what IP addresses watch what videos, and seeding of copyright-infringing content usually has far worse legal consequences than merely watching.
- SiempreViernes 3y ago
  Sure, ad revenue is an important method of funding media, but that is a very different claim from saying that YouTube's implementation of ad delivery is anything close to good. The simple fact is that the ad ecosystem YouTube directs has produced lots of low effort "content" farming, enterprises focused on raw output at the expense of quality, truth, and frequently the intellectual property of others.
  - bad_user 3y ago
    That may be true, but if you don't like YouTube, go somewhere else. The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors. So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else. I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.
    - davidhyde 3y ago
      Some people would be ok with paying but you cannot pay and still be an anonymous user. You need to be logged in and trust that Google won’t track you if you ask them not to.
    - 3y ago
RockRobotRock 3y ago
If what you're saying is that people who don't watch ads and don't pay for Premium will leave the platform, that seems like a desirable outcome to Google.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Unlikely. They need all the uploaders, and the uploaders need all the viewers, and they need both of those to be in the unholy massive numbers. Well, they want. No one actually needs to be a trillion dollar business instead of a million dollar business. But the point is it's unlikely they want all non-premium users to go elsewhere, not even merely the non-premium ad-blocking users. In fact, they don't even really want premium users if it means not still showing them ads somehow and still collecting data on them. They offer premium more or less begrudgingly because they sort of have to in order to excuse the user-hostile behavior everywhere else. Like donating to Firefox. They donate to firefox only so that they can make chrome as terrible as they want, and point to the existense of firefox as the answer to any complaints. They don't actually want anyone to use firefox. But it's better to let a few escape than to have the bulk decide to make laws they don't want. Ptemium is the same. They don't really want any premium users. Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. Which is pretty much what they do actually. Premium doesn't actually remove all the bad elements of youtube. It just goes from pulling 8 of your fingernails out to only pulling 5 of your fingernails out.
  - Moldoteck 3y ago
    uploaders care for premium payers. They receive much more money for them. There'll also be some ppl that will watch with ads despite them being so intrusive, I guess yt uploaders will be ok
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > and the uploaders need all the viewers Not at all. Non-paying viewers are worth less than zero. > Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. > Which is pretty much what they do actually. What are you talking about? There are no ads with premium.
lucumo 3y ago
> scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears I use a little user script that redirects me from YT shorts URLs to a normal video player URL. I found that it adds just enough friction to getting the next video that just scrolling shorts for an hour doesn't happen anymore. Added bonus is that you can rewind a bit of video if you want to, instead of having to watch the entire video again.
- codeTired 3y ago
  I used uBlock to completely remove shorts from my browser. I have been getting sucked into shorts as I am thirsty male :(.
that_guy_iain 3y ago
> (where people flee and seek alternatives) The problem is the moat. The moat is money.
octacat 3y ago
bullshit as a platform is a new model in 2023...

cm2187 3y ago

I don’t know. When youtube bypassed adblockers on iOS, I found it quite natural to break that habit and stop using youtube. I stopped watching TV 20 years ago, I have been using ad blockers as soon as they were introduced. The habit of not having to sit and watch some commercials is the most entrenched one in me. Hard to reverse a 20y habit.

msp26 3y ago

I still can't believe there wasn't greater pushback to the removal of visible dislikes. They were incredibly useful as a quick indicator to see if something might be wrong with a video.

rtsil 3y ago

This could be simply a coincidence, but it's possible they already relax their system based on user behavior. I used to watch YT through the TV app until the ads became insanely outrageous (six unskippable ads for a 10 min video, including two ads one minute after the video has started). Then I just bought a mini pc and plugged it in the TV and everything was fine (except for HDR that for some reason doesn't work) and without ads. Then a couple of weeks ago I opened the YT app on TV and it was actually a much better experience than before: skippable ads, no ads on some videos. As if they're trying to lure me to use it again.

wimp 3y ago
They are definitely A/B testing ad tolerance. I reset the TV app whenever the ads become unreasonable, and every time I do that, the skip ads button reverts back to the original style (skip all ads after 5 seconds). But if I login to an account, or use an anonymous session for long enough, the skip ads button will switch to the progress ring style, with 60+ seconds of unskippable ads. When that happens, I reset the app again.

miki123211 3y ago

Video hosting is expensive and needs to be paid for somehow. Any competitor will have the same problems as Youtube does. You can go the Nebula route and require users to pay (which means far fewer users) or require creators to pay (which means far fewer creators). You could also require creators to host the videos themselves, but that also requires money, expertise and causes downtime when a video goes viral. There's also P2P, but far too many users are on mobile and behind NATs these days for that to make sense. Even if this wasn't the case, P2P is a privacy and legal nightmare, it's trivial for companies to track what IP addresses watch what videos, and seeding of copyright-infringing content usually has far worse legal consequences than merely watching.

SiempreViernes 3y ago
Sure, ad revenue is an important method of funding media, but that is a very different claim from saying that YouTube's implementation of ad delivery is anything close to good. The simple fact is that the ad ecosystem YouTube directs has produced lots of low effort "content" farming, enterprises focused on raw output at the expense of quality, truth, and frequently the intellectual property of others.
- bad_user 3y ago
  That may be true, but if you don't like YouTube, go somewhere else. The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors. So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else. I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.
  - davidhyde 3y ago
    Some people would be ok with paying but you cannot pay and still be an anonymous user. You need to be logged in and trust that Google won’t track you if you ask them not to.
  - 3y ago

RockRobotRock 3y ago

If what you're saying is that people who don't watch ads and don't pay for Premium will leave the platform, that seems like a desirable outcome to Google.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Unlikely. They need all the uploaders, and the uploaders need all the viewers, and they need both of those to be in the unholy massive numbers. Well, they want. No one actually needs to be a trillion dollar business instead of a million dollar business. But the point is it's unlikely they want all non-premium users to go elsewhere, not even merely the non-premium ad-blocking users. In fact, they don't even really want premium users if it means not still showing them ads somehow and still collecting data on them. They offer premium more or less begrudgingly because they sort of have to in order to excuse the user-hostile behavior everywhere else. Like donating to Firefox. They donate to firefox only so that they can make chrome as terrible as they want, and point to the existense of firefox as the answer to any complaints. They don't actually want anyone to use firefox. But it's better to let a few escape than to have the bulk decide to make laws they don't want. Ptemium is the same. They don't really want any premium users. Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. Which is pretty much what they do actually. Premium doesn't actually remove all the bad elements of youtube. It just goes from pulling 8 of your fingernails out to only pulling 5 of your fingernails out.
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  uploaders care for premium payers. They receive much more money for them. There'll also be some ppl that will watch with ads despite them being so intrusive, I guess yt uploaders will be ok
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > and the uploaders need all the viewers Not at all. Non-paying viewers are worth less than zero. > Or rather, sure they'd happily collect a subscription from everyone AND still show ads and collect data. > Which is pretty much what they do actually. What are you talking about? There are no ads with premium.

lucumo 3y ago

> scroll shorts until their brains leak from their ears I use a little user script that redirects me from YT shorts URLs to a normal video player URL. I found that it adds just enough friction to getting the next video that just scrolling shorts for an hour doesn't happen anymore. Added bonus is that you can rewind a bit of video if you want to, instead of having to watch the entire video again.

codeTired 3y ago
I used uBlock to completely remove shorts from my browser. I have been getting sucked into shorts as I am thirsty male :(.

that_guy_iain 3y ago

> (where people flee and seek alternatives) The problem is the moat. The moat is money.

octacat 3y ago

bullshit as a platform is a new model in 2023...