• BolexForSoup@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s like they think the only way to make money is to drown us in ads based off the telemetry they scoop up and we’re entitled brats for wanting to have a say in how our data is harvested/used against us.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s their business model. Drowning us in ads is literally how they make money. They aren’t a tech company. They’re an ad aggregation company. They collect data via having users use freemium services. They use that data to create anonymized profiles of millions or billions of people. They break those profiles down into subsets. And then they let ad companies buy the ability for Google to target those users with ads based on things they’re likely to buy based on the data that Google has collected. It’s a much more effective way of marketing ads than just playing ad spots on tv or on radio. Better than billboards and magazine spreads etc. That’s literally what Google (and Apple, and Amazon even) do. It’s what Facebook does. It’s what most social media does. Their tech? Just a way to get you to buy into an ecosystem so you continue to feed the profile and the algorithm and see the ads.

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry but with all do respect I do not need you to lecture me about how big data dovetails with digital marketing or the B2B side of it for google, thanks.

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You don’t like the fact that they make money by showing you ads? Take your business somewhere else. You’re the one who agreed to the terms of service.

          At the point where you’re using an adblocker I’d say you’re capable of researching other means to avoid ads on any platform where you don’t want them, paid or free. There’s work-arounds for this problem. Multiple of them. Including using another extension to play just the video in a frame by itself where the adblocker still works, using piped or revanced or any of the other services that offer YouTube experiences without ads (floatplane, grayjay etc), or paying for the service.

          As it stands the posts I see about solutions get basically no interaction while rage posts like this get thousands of comments and upvotes and bring with them a bunch of random misinformation. I feel like there’s just too many of these posts full stop.

    • rchive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, no matter what, you do have a say. You can just not use YouTube. Pretty easy, actually.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That won’t prevent Google from scraping my data from every other website I use.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure what that has to do with YouTube detecting ad blockers.

    • raptir@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      63
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a paid service though.

      Like I get the sentiment, and I use YouTube with uBlock Origin to avoid paying, but if you’re not willing to pay and you’re not willing to watch ads what are you proposing?

      • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        68
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say they can’t serve any ads. I said they’re drowning us in them - which even then I could tolerate except all the data they mine from us is ridiculous. Then they use opaque terms to weaponize it back at us to make us into little addicts who can’t look away and/or sell it to third parties. I do not agree with that so I do everything I can to make my telemetry worthless or otherwise inaccessible.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          50
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is a distinction that some defenders miss. A lot of people who use ad-blockers would be fine with ads if they were restrained and not too obtrusive. But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.

          We went from 1 skippable 5 second ad per video to multiple ads every 10 minutes or so, sometimes even unskippable 15+ second ads or even more ads in a row. When is it going to be enough? Are we supposed to take them on their word that this is necessary, simply assuming that they need it because they don’t even share financial numbers? Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?

          Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.

          • online@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And let’s be honest about who this is paying: Alphabet’s 2023 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

            Adversarial tech, like adblockers, is good. We should use it. If people want users to not want to use it, they should change the product so that we don’t want to use it.

            It’s not illegal for me to use an ad blocker and it should never become illegal.

          • kameecoding@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            But the amount and frequency of ads only seem to increase. Something that would be difficult to justify, because time does not suffer inflation.

            I mean time doesn’t, but cost of ads can be cheaper due to competition and then because lots of people use adblockers they need to push more ads on those who don’t block it, really not hard to justify, plus they are a publicly owned company which means they will always suffer from the same problems every other publicly traded company does under capitalism, having to keep growing forever with ever increasing quarterly profits.

            Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter. On the lack of that, no wonder some people just decide they refuse to be squeezed forever.

            I mean, you can literally just not use the platform, that’s your negotiating power, but you don’t want that, nor ads, nor paying for it, you want it for free, I mean, I don’t blame you for it, I want shit for free too, who doesn’t, just not how the world works at the moment.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              If you want to be this cynical about it I can only tell you one thing: the world does work like that, because people can get away with it and they do.

              Yeah corporations can decide to sell our time, eyeballs and data for smaller and smaller fractions of a penny without asking us. Because clearly it isn’t about what is fair and equitable, it’s not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it’s about what they can get away with.

              Considering how much tech companies get away with, if anyone wants to moralize over not giving them what they demand, I can only laugh.

              • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean they asked you, they told you the exact amount they won’t do that for, you don’t want to pay it, so they engaged you in a weapons race of adblockers vs adblocker detectors.

                the world works like that because that’s how the world works currently, because that’s the point of evolution we are at, we haven’t yet moved past the capitalist system.

                Because clearly it isn’t about what is fair and equitable, it’s not about making sure every party gets what they deserve, it’s about what they can get away with.

                are we still talking about fucking youtube videos or did the conversation somehow changed to be about access to drinking water? damn bro, it’s youtube, a time-sink platform, you don’t need it to live

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  You are the one who are trying to make a big deal over what people ought to do and how the world works over ads. If you don’t think that’s not worth arguing about, then I dunno why you’re still at it.

                  I definitely don’t think using an ad blocker is a moral battleground, I’m more baffled by the idea that Google needs defending over this.

                  • kameecoding@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I just dislike people making arguments that are really about their entitlement and try to pass it off as something else.

                    you could make some fair points, that youtube is essentially a monopoly and that locking some educational content behind a pay/adwall is unfairly disadvantageous to people with less money, but nope, your problem is that:

                    Is our only other option to pay up, once again, the amount that they decided is a fair compensation and also keep increasing?

                    Seems that at the very least some way for the users to negotiate what they believe is fair is lacking in this matter.

                    “How dare they ask us for money, why don’t they ask us how much we want to pay? it’s so unfair, why don’t they just run their service for free??”

                    it’s a bit whingy, innit?

                    , then I dunno why you’re still at it.

                    I have covid so I have some free time to tire my brain out calling out whingy shit.

                • Wooki@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Wow this is the dumbest argument for a monopoly I’ve ever read

                  • Stumblinbear@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    How is YouTube a monopoly? You can use other platforms, YouTube is just the most popular. There aren’t many because it’s wildly unprofitable and people refuse to pay for it.

      • BReel@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I paid for paid for premium for a while. Then it showed me an ad for paramount + anyways. So I said fuck you google and installed an ad blocker.

        Point being I was willing and did pay for the premium service. But even “ad free with premium” still wasn’t ad free. It was “ad reduced”

        • Elbrar@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve had Premium since whenever it was first introduced (a decade at this point?) and I’ve never seen a youtube-provided ad during that time, assuming I’m logged into the appropriate account.

          • BReel@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I had it for a long time too and never did until maybe… idk 2 months ago? And they only show up on specific videos that have shows/movies associated with it.

            So in this case, I was watching game grumps play peppa pig (would recommend lol) and it showed me this right under the vid.

            • Elbrar@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Huh. 98% of my youtube consumption is on either TV or phone apps at this point, though, so they really wouldn’t have a place to put something like that. Or maybe they would and I just haven’t watched anything that would have it. Who knows.

              Paramount Plus definitely likes shoving a 30 second ad before your show even on the ad-free plan, though…

        • raptir@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, there are no YouTube-served ads but a lot of vloggers are using sponsored segments to better monetize their channels. So that’s where sponsor block comes in.

        • WldFyre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve never seen an ad and I’ve had yt premium for 6+ years

      • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I cannot get ad-free experience with YT Premium. I can only get ad-free videos bundled with a whole bunch of other useless shit I will never use like YT Music. And the simple reason why I cannot get only ad-free videos is because then I would pay them less, so they don’t give me the option.

      • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The existence of the paid offering doesn’t invalidate use of the free offering, regardless of whether people are permitting ads on the latter. Any given Youtube page is just a collection of web elements and a call to a video server: these things get loaded or blocked at my sole discretion. My hardware, my web browser, my internet bandwidth, my opsec, my time.

        If I put household items out on the nature strip, I have no expectation that passers-by will have a cup of tea with me first, then take every item as an indivisible lot. So my proposal to Google is: take those items off the nature strip, put them back inside the house and lock the door. Until they do that, no issue exists, despite the company’s efforts to fabricate one.

      • ominouslemon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve recently been downvoted to oblivion for writing this exact thing, talking about online newspapers.

        People don’t want ads and they don’t want to pay. They just expect to get stuff for free and I can’t decide if that’s because Lemmy is either filled with spoiled brats, or people who genuinely do not know how the world works, or both.

        In their partial defence, I must say that the way companies have used the Internet up until a few years ago may have led them to believe that free content is a thing.

        And, before someone comes along and tries to tear me a new one, YES, I do use uBlock on sites that harvest too many data (e.g. anything by Google) or sites that are too aggressive with ads. But at least I know that I’m either a freeloader or, in the best case scenario, a protester. And I know that, if everyone did the same, so much of the internet would just shut down or go behind paywalls.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          ·
          1 year ago

          I provide financial support to the services I believe in, Washington Post, NYT, Nebula, previously HBO, a few others.

          But it’s absolutely on my terms. If I were a broke college student. I’d have no issues pirating literally everything. As it is, I’ll find ways to get the stuff from companies that get too greedy. “Public secrets for sale” isn’t a thing, and that’s all data of any form really is. The difference between someone telling you the basic plot of a movie and telling you every pixel of the movie isn’t all that far apart, just the amount of data they’re repeating.

        • Kepabar@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, it’s neither.

          It’s that while I do enjoy whatever it is, if it were to disappear because I’m ad blocking and won’t sub then … ohh well?

          There are a select few groups I actually care about and I donate to them (like PBS).

          Anything else will either find a way or die but I don’t care which.

        • kameecoding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          that’s my take too, everyone wants free youtube, well the servers aren’t free, the content creators don’t do it for free, youtube is as big as it is and has as varied content it has is because they provide a platform, but then people want to watch it both for free and without ads.

        • Demuniac@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, thank you! I’ve been downvoted previously in a topic similar to this one. I know change can be hard for some people but we always knew this would come sooner or later. A huge company wants to make money off their service and people here act as if it’s their right to find a way around it. It’s not. You were just lucky that there was one. Either find other entertainment or accept that you will get ads.

      • lobut@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        1 year ago

        lol you got downvoted for a perfectly reasonable question, it’s like Reddit all over again