• @HughJanus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean, that’s great and I’m glad you’re happy with that but:

    1. This is a privacy forum and that is the opposite of privacy. Every video, like, click, and comment you submit is still used to profile you. There’s no opting out.

    2. I love watching YT videos but the actual interface is fucking horrific: I can’t filter out the garbage I don’t want to watch like Shorts, podcasts, and live videos. This would be very simple for YouTube to ad.

    They hijack my search results if the video I’m looking for is not in the top 5 to show me more “suggested” videos.

    My home feed, instead of showing content relevant to my interests that I’ve expressed using likes and subscriptions, is full of garbage clickbait and videos I already watched 1 time 8 years ago, and the same fucking videos that are already in my subscription feed. It’s ridiculous how bad they are at this.

    1. If I’m paying for a service I expect to not see ads and YT premium does nothing about in-video ads.

    2. The actual creators are paid a tiny fraction of what YT is, despite providing the vast majority of the value. And YT treats them like garbage anyway.

    When there is a competing subscription service that solves these problems and works well, I’ll be happy to sign up for that. Until then I’ll keep using LibreTube and YT can eat a Weiner.

    • @tuxed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago
      1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
      2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

      It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

      Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough so that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

      Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

    • @tuxed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago
      1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
      2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

      It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

      Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

      Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

    • @tuxed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago
      1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
      2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

      It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

      Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

      Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

    • @tuxed@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago
      1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
      2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

      It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

      Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

      Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.