Firefox users are reporting an ‘artificial’ load time on YouTube videos. YouTube says it’s part of a plan to make people who use adblockers “experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using.”

  • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anything to justify your stance. The experience is better without ads, but people just don’t want to pay.

    • snugglesthefalse@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guess they’ll have to do a better job at convincing me that I should pay for what’s historically been free. I’ve never tolerated ads and I’m not about to start. At this point they’re encouraging me to carry on out of spite, underhanded tactics are just giving me more reasons not to do what they want.

      • etrotta@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        You realize that they are only able to pay for “what’s historically been free” because of advertisements right? Google might be able to sustain Youtube even without ads because they have other revenue sources, but the vast majority of their revenue are from advertisements, and it would be a massive loss of money to keep Youtube up without it generating ad revenue. Hosting videos is one of the most expensive things a website can do. If we are to ever hope for other companies to compete with Youtube, we should expect for it to not be free. All that said, Google can still go fuck themselves though - I cannot possibly endorse their methods.

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

          Yes, I do realize how terribly expensive hosting videos is. It doesn’t change my stance as a customer/end user, however.

      • Yawnder@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Make you pay for “what has historically been provided in exchange for a fee or advertisement for the past 17 years, one year after the service launched”.

        You’ll do what you want of course, but that fake outrage and righteousness is just pitiful. Just stop pretending and own that you just don’t want to pay for it as long as you’ll be able to.

        • Something_Complex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dude you are the product. Or do you think that they didn’t build your profile based on your experiences and tastes and then sold it to other companies…

          Wow someone hasn’t understood how the internet works

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, I think it’s a reasonable stance. I pay for Crunchyroll and Hidive because I like the paid service they provide, it’s a good experience that they are providing and I find value in it. Why would I pay for something that I don’t find value in, something where a company tries to actively downgrade the experience of its users rather than try to upgrade the experience of its paid service? I like services where they don’t try to actively screw over their users. I pay for Lastfm and Trakt too, because again I like the paid service that they provide.

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

        It’s hard to provide something extra when all their content comes from users. They tried with redtube YouTube Red originals but those were pretty lame.

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

        You pay for those because you can’t watch them for free without ads by using an extension or something like that. They’re not “convenient enough to bypass” for you.

    • C_M@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Same holds for YouTube. They just got rid of the only no ads subscription here. Which was half the price of premium. So they kick people out of that, and afterwards going to war with ad blockers… If they really wanted as much people as possible to pay, they would have kept that abbo. But probably it’s better for them financially to have a bit more with ad blockers and ads and convert some to the premium tier

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Look, I think YouTube is one of the few major “social media” sites that net positive for social good. And it loses Google money every year with saving everyone’s videos forever and hosting 4k and even 8k content…

      But you can’t withhold the carrot and use the stick. They’re eroding trust with the people that have liked and supported YouTube throughout the years. There are plenty of people like me, that would gladly pay some amount of money. Just not THAT amount of money. Create some payment tiers and decent benefits for climbing up it.