this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
168 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38885 readers
228 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JakenVeina@lemm.ee 36 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's because that's what it says. They're hardly trying to hide it.

[–] dan@upvote.au 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's likely they don't have much of a choice as a business. The more people use ad blockers, the more ads they need to show to make up for the loss in revenue.

[–] zurohki@aussie.zone 30 points 2 years ago (3 children)

And the more ads they show, the more people install adblockers.

[–] chahk@beehaw.org 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Paying for Premium is another option. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but to a creator a view from one Premium subscriber is worth much more that hundreds of views from ad-supported free tier subs. It's the next best option outside of direct payment (Patreon, GoFundMe, etc.)

If content from these creators is really important to you and you spend a lot of time on YouTube, maybe a monthly sub is actually worth it.

[–] Intelligence_Gap@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago

Personally a major problem I have with YouTube premium is when they launched it they took some quality of life features from the free side and moved them to premium. If they didn’t do that I’d probably have premium

[–] sparkl_motion@beehaw.org 5 points 2 years ago

That’s good to know. I’m on a family plan with my girlfriend and her kids, so I haven’t seen ads in a long time.

I’m glad to hear this is beneficial to creators as well.

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yeah I don't understand why people think they deserve good content for free? Either you pay for it through ads, or you pay for it through money (or you pay for it through either licensing fees or taxes, like the Australian ABC and British BBC). Producing and hosting videos are both pretty expensive, and YouTube's not a charity.

The reason there's no major competitors to YouTube is that nobody else can afford it at a scale anywhere near what YouTube does - most companies couldn't afford to run a service 1/10 the size even.

[–] algorithmae@lemmy.one 4 points 2 years ago

I was pretty tolerant of YouTube ads up until a year ago, when they started playing unskippable food ads which I morally disagree with. No amount of "not relevant" made them go away so I'm hardcore ad-free now. I even tried YouTube premium until they decided to jack up the price on my second month of having it, so fuck em

[–] dan@upvote.au 2 points 2 years ago

Yeah, it's a bit of a cycle. If it continues, they'll likely find new ways to make ads harder to block. For example, embedding the ads directly into the same video stream as the actual video and using DRM. I have no doubt they've already prototyped or even fully built out solutions like this, waiting to roll out if/when they're needed.

[–] gamey@feddit.rocks 2 points 2 years ago

Youtube never was a especially profitable business on it's own, they basically just need it for the traffic but I guess they might try to change that, if that's the case the logical next step would be dropping independent creators! :/