Goodbye Youtube and thanks for all the fish

mvilain@infosec.pub to Technology@lemmy.world – 1798 points –

Youtube let the other shoe drop in their end-stage enshittification this week. Last month, they required you to turn on Youtube History to view the feed of youtube videos recommendations. That seems reasonable, so I did it. But I delete my history every 1 week instead of every 3 months. So they don't get much from my choices. It still did a pretty good job of showing me stuff I was interested in watching.

Then on Oct 1, they threw up a "You're using an Ad Blocker" overlay on videos. I'd use my trusty Overlay Remover plugin to remove the annoying javascript graphic and watch what I wanted. I didn't have to click the X to dismiss the obnoxious page.

Last week, they started placing a timer with the X so you had to wait 5 seconds for the X to appear so you could dismiss blocking graphic.

Today, there was a new graphic. It allowed you to view three videos before you had to turn off your Ad Blocker. I viewed a video 3 times just to see what happens.

Now all I see is this.

Google has out and out made it a violation of their ToS to have an ad blocker to view Youtube. Or you can pay them $$$.

I ban such sites from my systems by replacing their DNS name in my hosts file routed to 127.0.0.1 which means I can't view the site. I have quite a few banned sites now.

837

You are viewing a single comment

Video Just has fundamentally different hosting cost for processing and bandwidth. Amongst the big streaming providers only Netflix makes a profit. Twitch is not profitable, either.

I just want to point out that a corporation not making a profit doesn't mean they're not making money. It means they've spent the money on something and then in the accounting they can call it an expense instead of profit. But they still made that money and they still have something to show for it.

That’s revenue, not profit.

Revenue only becomes profit if you let it.

Got $1m in revenue that you don't want to declare as profit? Purchase some assets and now you have $1m expense instead.

Yeah, sure. Doesn't change the other point

I guess what I'm saying is that although your first point is true, your second point doesn't actually support it.

1 more...