I'm sure it's much harder to manage a Premium subscription than it is to simply install uBO
And an ad blocker should be part of everyone's personal and organisational security model regardless, so you'd have to install ublock and specifically turn it off for YouTube.
But of course, the reason people block ads is most of the Google ads were straight malware at one point.
Can't use uBO from most of the devices I actually watch YouTube on.
For me, it's much easier to just pay for Premium. No ads on my phone, Playstation, Chromecast, or locked-down work laptop that I can't install extensions on.
And the creators whose content I consume still get paid for my views. Honestly, it's worth it for both my use-case and my morals.
Revanced for android, SmartTube for android TV
Anything for Apple TV?
Yattee
Possibly something like PiHole? Though I've not tried that myself.
PiHole doesn't work on YouTube ads unfortunately. No DNS based blocker does.
This is generally the case for any sites thay have their own ad inventory, since the ads are coming from the same servers as the site itself.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn't be looked down upon. It's way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I started Premium as Google Play Music back when. Made sense as an alternative to Spotify. In my book, it still does. Ad-free YouTube is just a bonus for a music streaming service.
Agreed. Family plan is priced similar to Spotify, and ad free YouTube is a nice bonus
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, ... and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, ...
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it's just kind of disrespectful to be like "well you could just pay for the service, you know?". Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators' pockets.
how much actually ends up in the creators’ pockets
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about "morals" because I'm not willing to subsidize a rich person's hobby.
Regular perople aren't making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don't feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I'd just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it's immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don't think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren't gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it's all highly-polished monetized garbage. They've made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It's to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It's so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That's why you get weird accusations of "stealing" content or not supporting "creators," as if it's my job to subsidize some rich person's hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it's not that anymore, then it can die for all I care -- I don't want it.
I know. I managed a YouTube partner account, but also I Googled it just now.
$1-2 per 1,000 views is what I'm reading, but I can say I personally saw numbers at least five times less than that with the amount I managed.
If anyone wants to support a creator, just donate money to them directly. They'll be absolutely floored by the gesture.
I don't disagree, but things like that have to be monotized in some way or else they would not exist.
Yeah you can have YouTube premium and also use an ad blocker…. Being mad at YouTube is just the hot thing right now
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
I can afford it and refuse to pay on principle. I actually would be glad if Google went out of business (although extremely unlikely). Monopolistic Companies like them use every opportunity to cheat and modify laws to give them advantage and remove any chance of a new innovative competitor taking over. Then they expect us to act honorable and play by the rules that they set up.
They are the cancer and we need to restore old antitrust laws that supposed to prevent them from ever getting so big.
You don't have to always be ahead. I've been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I've invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
You've definitely saved time by using an adblocker/Revanced, compared to having to watch ads or keep track of a paid subscription.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I'm starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
LW has a reputation?
By being seen as the de facto "hub" for Lemmy, they've attracted a large chunk of Redditors who haven't left their Redditor attitudes behind them. As LW continues to grow, I've been noticing a lot more immaturity on the platform as of late. It's honestly a little disappointing to see.
I mean, attempting to monetize every single thing in life is juvenile and short sighted as well.
How else do you expect a globally-accessible video hosting service that requires no upfront costs for users to upload millions of video files at the cost of several petabytes of data transfers every day to function?
On donations?
I mean the flip side of that is that youtube would be worthless without the content the users generate.
The users generating the content people actually want to watch wouldn't be able to do so without the monetization that's in place, though. They can't make content for free, and shouldn't be expected to. And not all creators can rely on sponsorships to subsidize themselves, either, so most creators rely pretty heavily on ad revenue in order to stay afloat on the platform and keep the lights on.
If the creators can't afford to keep creating, then that also degrades YouTube's service as a whole, as well.
Really? I'm pretty sure people can make youtube content, and maintain a job. If youtube can't stay afloat without invasive ads happening every 5 minutes then youtube deserves to go the way of MySpace and every other dead platform before them. Simple as that. Youtube isn't a necessity.
If that's how you feel, then don't use it. Don't consume the content made by people who quite likely rely on ad revenue to pay their rent.
Simple as that.
"the price is what the market will bear" or whatever. I used to pay for ytp (red)/gpm. Paused for a month, went to resub, was like +$4 more a month. I don't value yt at ~$16, not even at ~$12 really but hey, they wouldn't fuck billions of users over in the pursing of profits, right? If yt/Google was a scrappy little startup, or a creator that I valued, sure, here's $5 a month through patreon. But they aren't, they bought a platform with no clear avenue to monetization/breaking even, and sat on it for 10 years, and then they want to be like 'please we are the victim here, it's the evil ad blockers that are forcing us into the streets!'.
G has, metrically speaking, fuck-tons of money. And if they so desperately need to clear their books, they can always close yt, anytime they want. Or they could let the customers pay what they think the service is worth. Hell, they could even shift the costs to the creators, which isn't the worst idea in the world - it'd at least stop kids from uploading their fortnite clips with them screaming into their mics. Not everybody should be allowed in front of a webcam.
But as long as it's [number higher than I value yt as] or [shitty experience], I will take option 3 and tell g to gag on my balls, and I shall enjoy my $5 and my ad-free experience.
Lots of options, but nah "fuck the users" came out on top. Acting like the users are the reason why they bought and operated a money pit for 15 years is just hilarious.
You say YouTube's solution was "fuck the users", but the solutions you offered are "fuck the creators". I'm not sure how that's any better.
I fail to see how asking creators for their cost in storage space is "fucking the creator" but okay
Storage isn't the only cost, or even the major cost, it's bandwidth to serve them
I don't see a better way for YouTube to be managed in the current environment, but I do agree it's not the best possible way; it's just the ideal way is limited to an ideal world, which we don't have.
That can be a shared expense, but bandwidth is variable and storage space isn't, so I imagine yt would charge by the MB for uploads but do a simplified floating split cost for bandwidth. Again, not everyone should be able to blast the internet with their (tbh) shitty unboxing, multiplayer raging, prank/harassment, 8 second meme, etc videos.
Everyone knew - or should have known - that yt was a money pit. I was happy that the og devs got bought out, but the writing was on the wall back then. The fact that g let it sit for so long before trying to recoup some funds for it is one reason why everyone is so pissy about the whole paying vs ads debate - it was free and non-intrusive for so long, the fuck do they need to fix it now?
So yeah, my idea is shitty for the people who aren't able to bankroll their video startup career, but if you just open yt and take in what kind of 'content' is being created and shoveled... The fact that they haven't at least pitched the idea is an active disservice to the internet as a whole. I don't think it would be so bad, short-term pain for long-term (theoretical) sustainability.
Once upon a time it was worth it for me too. But since every service is running up the rates, I had to decide which, if any, deserved my money. Google didn't make the cut. I have a feeling nobody will by the end of year
uBlock works on Firefox on Android.
ReVanced replaces native YouTube app and Smart Tube replaces YouTube on TV.
That does nothing to address my moral concern, which is ensuring that the creators whose content I watch are getting paid.
While I appreciate free things, I know that I can't keep getting free things if the people making them can't afford to do so.
You could just, you know, send those creators money directly. Nearly all of them have methods set up for that already, and I'm guessing anyone who doesn't would set something up in a hurry if you asked to donate to them.
It's a win / win. You get to sit on your moral high ground, the creators get paid, Google can fuck off.
My subscription list is 100+. As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it's not a financially viable option for me. At least with my Premium subscription, they're getting something from my viewership, which is more than they'd get from me if I was adblocking their videos.
Hold on, Premium subscription where Google gets the cut and doesn't have to provide you with any report on your money spent is "a financially viable option"?
As opposed to paying even $1/mo per channel I subscribe to, yes. Many creators have come out and said that their earnings reports show that higher-valued views come from Premium users, even though those viewers are not being served ads. It benefits them more than if I were to sit through every ad on their channel.
At the end of the day, Google's paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that's much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
I suggest you do the math. Your views are worth about $.001 each. Google it. The most generous estimate I could find was $.005 a view.
If you donate a quarter a month to your favorite creators, you'll be doing more for them than giving them 50 views within the same month.
And that's the highest estimate. The lower end shows you giving them 250 views to break even on that 25¢ monthly donation.
At the end of the day, Google’s paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that’s much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you're paying $20/mo for premium, and you're using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations -- even measured over several months -- compared to the tiny fraction they'd get from that same money via your premium subscription.
It seems like you're trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That's fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.
Because realistically, that's more work than I'm willing to put into it. I wouldn't maintain that long-term. Especially because then I'd have to also sit through ads (99% of my YouTube use is from my TV via my PS5, so adblock isn't an option there), which would turn me off from using the platform, at all.
Premium is what works with the compromises I'm personally willing to make. And, this may come as a shock, but I don't want Google to get nothing, either. They need to be able to maintain their platform, which I get hours upon hours of use of every single day. I don't take issue with them making money in order to keep the lights on.
As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it’s not a financially viable option for me.
No one's suggesting you pay more than what you're paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you're paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.
which is more than they’d get from me if I was adblocking their videos
Now you're moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn't get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.
It's bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm explaining my opinions on the matter and the choices I made. I'm not sure why you, who are not in any way impacted by my video consumption habits, take issue with any of that.
I don't think they really care about the creators. This is just virtue signaling.
YouTube ad revenue is a pittance. If you want to actually support creators, send them money directly.
Paying Google doesn't feel like the correct thing to do when they keep making Youtube worse while increasing the price. Morally I think it's wrong to reward their shitty decisions against other users. Personally I'm still mad about they removed the dislike counter.
Nobody's forcing you to use it, then.
I'm not. I'm just commenting on the moral argument you mentioned.
The most moral course of action would be to simply boycott the service altogether.
I'd rather watch non-monetized channels using an adblocker. The entire attraction of YouTube for me was that it was a platform where regular people could share random videos for free. If that's not what it is, then I'm not interested.
If YouTube had an option to filter all monetized channels from my feed, then that would be the most moral course of action, since I could simply not watch those -- quite bluntly, awful -- videos.
If you paid the content creators directly they'd receive tens of thousands of times more than any of your views gave them.
I used to work with a partner account, and I can tell you they make NOTHING for views compared to what Google makes.
So hey, you do you, but don't try to convince us or yourself that this is for the content creators. That's like saying you order Uber eats to support the drivers, but you never tip them.
This is about the compromises and concessions I'm personally willing and financially able to make. Obviously it's not the perfect solution, but we don't live in a perfect world.
It's crazy how unaware people are of the options out there, and the little effort it takes.
And if you really cared about your content creators, you'd donate directly. You're giving more money to Google than to them.
For some reason, those never work for me. I've tried at least 3 different YouTube and blockers and they all fail.
Also there's no blockers for something like a fire stick, which sucks.
uBlock origin works, but you must disable all other blockers or browser plugins doing something with youtube, as they might interfere with the adblocking capability.
For the fire stick, simply install smarttubenext. Adfree and with sponsorblock included.
uBlock should work, if it doesn't make sure you are using latest version, you have custom filters disabled and disable all extension. If that fixes it then you can start enabling other extension tracking which one caused issue.
With adblock detection filtering too much can cause to trigger the detection.
Very long hdmi cable.
Are you using Firefox?
Also, you might have to go into filter lists in the uBO dashboard and make sure you've checkmarked everything.
I'm not sure what can be done about a fire stick. I'm lucky because I have a mini PC connected to my main TV that runs Linux so I can use that to stream whatever I want. It's one of the best setups I've ever had for entertainment. I just got one of those cheap wireless keyboards with a trackpad for $10 from newegg, and Linux Mint has a setting to make the UI more usable from a distance.
I do use a Roku sometimes when I travel for work, and I just deal with the ads, so if there's a way to make something like a fire stick or roku work with a custom OS, that would be nice, but I'm not aware of anything.
Edit: Just noticed u/viking@infosec.pub has information about smarttubenext. Might look into that.
There is 100% a blocker for the Amazon fire stick. It's called SmartTube.
That isn't really an option for Android.
Edit: are you psychos actually pulling up YouTube on your browser?
Edit edit: Listen, I'm about convenience on this matter. I want to click a link and just have it open up. I'm also not as militant as most of you about making sure YouTube doesn't make any money off of me because....that doesn't make any sense. Yeah I'm going to block ads where I can but I'm not going to inconvenience myself in the process. Everyone keeps recommending revanced which admittedly I haven't tried, but vanced worked like donkey dick. I said it.
Edit edit edit: ok assholes I got revanced set up. I am not an idiot but that was far from "5s of effort". Thanks for the recommendation.
Didn't know about Grayjay until now. Thanks for bringing it up - it looks really promising!
Firefox for Android can.
Hell yeah I am. Fuck them trackers!
I have firefox mobile with uBlock Origin and Sponsorblock addons and haven't seen a fucking ad in two years. No app needed.
Revanced is an app
My revanced setup literally shows as "Youtube" and functions identically, with sponsorblocking and adblocking. It let me disable shorts entirely and use the click-bait thumbnail circumventer. Took me 5 minutes to setup. I see a video on any app and click on it and it opens up in revanced no problem.
People act like 5 seconds of effort is worth what, 120$/year? After googling, closer to 160$/year? Lmao I wish that amount of money was inconsequential to me
Setting aside the conflation of "5 minutes" to "5 seconds" for a bit just to say: setting up ReVanced is a gigantic pain in the ass. I've only ever been on the android platform. I've sideloaded apps. Also been in the technology industry for almost 3 decades. The documentation is dog shit. The official user forum r/revanced, (iirc) is a fucking circlejerk. Their own faq and top pinned "definitive install guide" post is out of date and just plain wrong. Down thread, whenever someone has questions (inevitably, because the documentation is fucked (see previous)), some smarmy asshat has the audacity to direct the confused newb to the same flawed docs.
I swear, fanatics are their own worst enemies. Now, I'm not saying you're a fanatic. But sideloading that app in 5 mins (or seconds, depending on which sentence you're relying on)? Yeah, bullshit.
This has been my exact same experience trying to use ReVanced as well. Piped has a much more helpful developer and community, in my opinion.
I dont even have root. You download the apk for the recommended version of YouTube, which the revanced manager app tells you, select it - it auto picks all the patches - hit apply, wait - then hit install. Takes maybe 2 minutes to install. Then you're done. Never once had any difficulty beyond that. One time I used a different youtube version than what was recommended, worked fine just didn't have all the patches.
I dunno why you were trying to sideload it. That's not necessary. You can do all this in, I'll be generous and say 15-20 minutes. I've done it a few times now and done it for others too, so it usually only takes me 5 to 10. Depends on how fast their phone is to patch the apk.
Throw in another minute to fully disable the official YouTube app and route all YouTube links to open with revanced and you're set.
pulling up youtube on your browser
Yes, on an Android tablet, using the PocketTube app (which manages my YT subscriptions into groups), to forward a group playlist to YT in Firefox with uBo installed, without being logged into YT in FF.
I don’t have to rely on other 3rd party servers and services working properly, I don’t get ads, and YT gets little to nothing on me as an anonymous user beyond PocketTube just pulling the latest videos from my subscriptions.
I’ve been reading all these posts about blocker warnings being displayed and having to update the uBo filters, and I haven’t seen one of those yet, without doing any of that.
Revanced is quite the pain to set up, in my opinion, and the Revanced forums aren't super helpful. The developer refuses to publish a useable guide.
I switched to NewPipe x Sponsorblock, and that one was maybe 20 seconds of downloading and installing, not counting tweaking the settings to my liking. It's been much more stable for me. Revanced always crashed for me at exactly 3 hours of continuous use, which was a problem since I use those 8-hour ambient sound videos to help me sleep.
There's also LibreTube, but that one can be a lot more finicky, and you have to manually switch the instance, which becomes a pain in the ass after a while.
Revanced forums are straight-up toxic. Any setup questions are smugly redirected at the unusable documentation, as you pointed out. For some reason, there's an elitist attitude in that group.
My mans really forgot about Revanced and Newpipe huh…
(Somehow Vanced still works on my old S8 and that has now become my dedicated YouTube player until it, or Vanced, dies)
I'm sure it's much harder to manage a Premium subscription than it is to simply install uBO
And an ad blocker should be part of everyone's personal and organisational security model regardless, so you'd have to install ublock and specifically turn it off for YouTube.
But of course, the reason people block ads is most of the Google ads were straight malware at one point.
Can't use uBO from most of the devices I actually watch YouTube on.
For me, it's much easier to just pay for Premium. No ads on my phone, Playstation, Chromecast, or locked-down work laptop that I can't install extensions on.
And the creators whose content I consume still get paid for my views. Honestly, it's worth it for both my use-case and my morals.
Revanced for android, SmartTube for android TV
Anything for Apple TV?
Yattee
Possibly something like PiHole? Though I've not tried that myself.
PiHole doesn't work on YouTube ads unfortunately. No DNS based blocker does.
This is generally the case for any sites thay have their own ad inventory, since the ads are coming from the same servers as the site itself.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn't be looked down upon. It's way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I started Premium as Google Play Music back when. Made sense as an alternative to Spotify. In my book, it still does. Ad-free YouTube is just a bonus for a music streaming service.
Agreed. Family plan is priced similar to Spotify, and ad free YouTube is a nice bonus
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, ... and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, ...
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it's just kind of disrespectful to be like "well you could just pay for the service, you know?". Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators' pockets.
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about "morals" because I'm not willing to subsidize a rich person's hobby.
Regular perople aren't making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don't feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I'd just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it's immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don't think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren't gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it's all highly-polished monetized garbage. They've made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It's to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It's so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That's why you get weird accusations of "stealing" content or not supporting "creators," as if it's my job to subsidize some rich person's hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it's not that anymore, then it can die for all I care -- I don't want it.
I know. I managed a YouTube partner account, but also I Googled it just now.
$1-2 per 1,000 views is what I'm reading, but I can say I personally saw numbers at least five times less than that with the amount I managed.
If anyone wants to support a creator, just donate money to them directly. They'll be absolutely floored by the gesture.
I don't disagree, but things like that have to be monotized in some way or else they would not exist.
Yeah you can have YouTube premium and also use an ad blocker…. Being mad at YouTube is just the hot thing right now
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
They’re datamining us to the tune of billions.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I can afford it and refuse to pay on principle. I actually would be glad if Google went out of business (although extremely unlikely). Monopolistic Companies like them use every opportunity to cheat and modify laws to give them advantage and remove any chance of a new innovative competitor taking over. Then they expect us to act honorable and play by the rules that they set up.
They are the cancer and we need to restore old antitrust laws that supposed to prevent them from ever getting so big.
You don't have to always be ahead. I've been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I've invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
You've definitely saved time by using an adblocker/Revanced, compared to having to watch ads or keep track of a paid subscription.
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I'm starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
LW has a reputation?
By being seen as the de facto "hub" for Lemmy, they've attracted a large chunk of Redditors who haven't left their Redditor attitudes behind them. As LW continues to grow, I've been noticing a lot more immaturity on the platform as of late. It's honestly a little disappointing to see.
I mean, attempting to monetize every single thing in life is juvenile and short sighted as well.
How else do you expect a globally-accessible video hosting service that requires no upfront costs for users to upload millions of video files at the cost of several petabytes of data transfers every day to function?
On donations?
I mean the flip side of that is that youtube would be worthless without the content the users generate.
The users generating the content people actually want to watch wouldn't be able to do so without the monetization that's in place, though. They can't make content for free, and shouldn't be expected to. And not all creators can rely on sponsorships to subsidize themselves, either, so most creators rely pretty heavily on ad revenue in order to stay afloat on the platform and keep the lights on.
If the creators can't afford to keep creating, then that also degrades YouTube's service as a whole, as well.
Really? I'm pretty sure people can make youtube content, and maintain a job. If youtube can't stay afloat without invasive ads happening every 5 minutes then youtube deserves to go the way of MySpace and every other dead platform before them. Simple as that. Youtube isn't a necessity.
If that's how you feel, then don't use it. Don't consume the content made by people who quite likely rely on ad revenue to pay their rent.
Simple as that.
"the price is what the market will bear" or whatever. I used to pay for ytp (red)/gpm. Paused for a month, went to resub, was like +$4 more a month. I don't value yt at ~$16, not even at ~$12 really but hey, they wouldn't fuck billions of users over in the pursing of profits, right? If yt/Google was a scrappy little startup, or a creator that I valued, sure, here's $5 a month through patreon. But they aren't, they bought a platform with no clear avenue to monetization/breaking even, and sat on it for 10 years, and then they want to be like 'please we are the victim here, it's the evil ad blockers that are forcing us into the streets!'.
G has, metrically speaking, fuck-tons of money. And if they so desperately need to clear their books, they can always close yt, anytime they want. Or they could let the customers pay what they think the service is worth. Hell, they could even shift the costs to the creators, which isn't the worst idea in the world - it'd at least stop kids from uploading their fortnite clips with them screaming into their mics. Not everybody should be allowed in front of a webcam.
But as long as it's [number higher than I value yt as] or [shitty experience], I will take option 3 and tell g to gag on my balls, and I shall enjoy my $5 and my ad-free experience.
Lots of options, but nah "fuck the users" came out on top. Acting like the users are the reason why they bought and operated a money pit for 15 years is just hilarious.
You say YouTube's solution was "fuck the users", but the solutions you offered are "fuck the creators". I'm not sure how that's any better.
I fail to see how asking creators for their cost in storage space is "fucking the creator" but okay
Storage isn't the only cost, or even the major cost, it's bandwidth to serve them
I don't see a better way for YouTube to be managed in the current environment, but I do agree it's not the best possible way; it's just the ideal way is limited to an ideal world, which we don't have.
That can be a shared expense, but bandwidth is variable and storage space isn't, so I imagine yt would charge by the MB for uploads but do a simplified floating split cost for bandwidth. Again, not everyone should be able to blast the internet with their (tbh) shitty unboxing, multiplayer raging, prank/harassment, 8 second meme, etc videos.
Everyone knew - or should have known - that yt was a money pit. I was happy that the og devs got bought out, but the writing was on the wall back then. The fact that g let it sit for so long before trying to recoup some funds for it is one reason why everyone is so pissy about the whole paying vs ads debate - it was free and non-intrusive for so long, the fuck do they need to fix it now?
So yeah, my idea is shitty for the people who aren't able to bankroll their video startup career, but if you just open yt and take in what kind of 'content' is being created and shoveled... The fact that they haven't at least pitched the idea is an active disservice to the internet as a whole. I don't think it would be so bad, short-term pain for long-term (theoretical) sustainability.
Once upon a time it was worth it for me too. But since every service is running up the rates, I had to decide which, if any, deserved my money. Google didn't make the cut. I have a feeling nobody will by the end of year
uBlock works on Firefox on Android.
ReVanced replaces native YouTube app and Smart Tube replaces YouTube on TV.
That does nothing to address my moral concern, which is ensuring that the creators whose content I watch are getting paid.
While I appreciate free things, I know that I can't keep getting free things if the people making them can't afford to do so.
You could just, you know, send those creators money directly. Nearly all of them have methods set up for that already, and I'm guessing anyone who doesn't would set something up in a hurry if you asked to donate to them.
It's a win / win. You get to sit on your moral high ground, the creators get paid, Google can fuck off.
My subscription list is 100+. As much as I would love to support all of those creators directly, it's not a financially viable option for me. At least with my Premium subscription, they're getting something from my viewership, which is more than they'd get from me if I was adblocking their videos.
Hold on, Premium subscription where Google gets the cut and doesn't have to provide you with any report on your money spent is "a financially viable option"?
As opposed to paying even $1/mo per channel I subscribe to, yes. Many creators have come out and said that their earnings reports show that higher-valued views come from Premium users, even though those viewers are not being served ads. It benefits them more than if I were to sit through every ad on their channel.
At the end of the day, Google's paying them more for my views than if I were an ad-viewing user. So for ~$20/mo (for family plan), that's much more financially viable for me than if I were to pay $1/mo to all 100+ creators I watch.
I suggest you do the math. Your views are worth about $.001 each. Google it. The most generous estimate I could find was $.005 a view.
If you donate a quarter a month to your favorite creators, you'll be doing more for them than giving them 50 views within the same month.
And that's the highest estimate. The lower end shows you giving them 250 views to break even on that 25¢ monthly donation.
Are you trolling? It feels like you are. At no point in this thread is anyone saying you need to start paying more. If you're paying $20/mo for premium, and you're using an arbitrary amount of $1 as the donation minimum per creator, then why not just donate $1 to 20 different creators for each month? Then the next month, donate to the next 20 creators, then the next 20, and so on. Believe it or not, all of those creators still get paid more by your direct donations -- even measured over several months -- compared to the tiny fraction they'd get from that same money via your premium subscription.
It seems like you're trying to argue some moral high ground of funding content you enjoy on youtube. That's fine. But it takes about 10 seconds of critical thinking to find ways to do it where you pay the same, the creators get paid more, and google gets paid nothing.
Because realistically, that's more work than I'm willing to put into it. I wouldn't maintain that long-term. Especially because then I'd have to also sit through ads (99% of my YouTube use is from my TV via my PS5, so adblock isn't an option there), which would turn me off from using the platform, at all.
Premium is what works with the compromises I'm personally willing to make. And, this may come as a shock, but I don't want Google to get nothing, either. They need to be able to maintain their platform, which I get hours upon hours of use of every single day. I don't take issue with them making money in order to keep the lights on.
No one's suggesting you pay more than what you're paying now. I simply suggested you pay them directly. Take whatever you're paying per month/year to google directly, then divide that up and contribute directly to the creators of your choosing.
Now you're moving the goalposts. No one is arguing against the fact that content creators get some amount of money from ads and subscriptions. The argument was that donating to them directly is better / more revenue for the creators, since google doesn't get a cut. You spend the same amount, the creators get paid more, google gets paid nothing.
It's bizarre how you are such an apologist for google.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm explaining my opinions on the matter and the choices I made. I'm not sure why you, who are not in any way impacted by my video consumption habits, take issue with any of that.
I don't think they really care about the creators. This is just virtue signaling.
YouTube ad revenue is a pittance. If you want to actually support creators, send them money directly.
Paying Google doesn't feel like the correct thing to do when they keep making Youtube worse while increasing the price. Morally I think it's wrong to reward their shitty decisions against other users. Personally I'm still mad about they removed the dislike counter.
Nobody's forcing you to use it, then.
I'm not. I'm just commenting on the moral argument you mentioned.
The most moral course of action would be to simply boycott the service altogether.
I'd rather watch non-monetized channels using an adblocker. The entire attraction of YouTube for me was that it was a platform where regular people could share random videos for free. If that's not what it is, then I'm not interested.
If YouTube had an option to filter all monetized channels from my feed, then that would be the most moral course of action, since I could simply not watch those -- quite bluntly, awful -- videos.
If you paid the content creators directly they'd receive tens of thousands of times more than any of your views gave them.
I used to work with a partner account, and I can tell you they make NOTHING for views compared to what Google makes.
So hey, you do you, but don't try to convince us or yourself that this is for the content creators. That's like saying you order Uber eats to support the drivers, but you never tip them.
This is about the compromises and concessions I'm personally willing and financially able to make. Obviously it's not the perfect solution, but we don't live in a perfect world.
It's crazy how unaware people are of the options out there, and the little effort it takes.
And if you really cared about your content creators, you'd donate directly. You're giving more money to Google than to them.
Enjoy your subscription price hike
For some reason, those never work for me. I've tried at least 3 different YouTube and blockers and they all fail.
Also there's no blockers for something like a fire stick, which sucks.
uBlock origin works, but you must disable all other blockers or browser plugins doing something with youtube, as they might interfere with the adblocking capability.
For the fire stick, simply install smarttubenext. Adfree and with sponsorblock included.
https://smarttubenext.com/firestick/
uBlock should work, if it doesn't make sure you are using latest version, you have custom filters disabled and disable all extension. If that fixes it then you can start enabling other extension tracking which one caused issue.
With adblock detection filtering too much can cause to trigger the detection.
Very long hdmi cable.
Are you using Firefox?
Also, you might have to go into filter lists in the uBO dashboard and make sure you've checkmarked everything.
I'm not sure what can be done about a fire stick. I'm lucky because I have a mini PC connected to my main TV that runs Linux so I can use that to stream whatever I want. It's one of the best setups I've ever had for entertainment. I just got one of those cheap wireless keyboards with a trackpad for $10 from newegg, and Linux Mint has a setting to make the UI more usable from a distance.
I do use a Roku sometimes when I travel for work, and I just deal with the ads, so if there's a way to make something like a fire stick or roku work with a custom OS, that would be nice, but I'm not aware of anything.
Edit: Just noticed u/viking@infosec.pub has information about smarttubenext. Might look into that.
There is 100% a blocker for the Amazon fire stick. It's called SmartTube.
That isn't really an option for Android.
Edit: are you psychos actually pulling up YouTube on your browser?
Edit edit: Listen, I'm about convenience on this matter. I want to click a link and just have it open up. I'm also not as militant as most of you about making sure YouTube doesn't make any money off of me because....that doesn't make any sense. Yeah I'm going to block ads where I can but I'm not going to inconvenience myself in the process. Everyone keeps recommending revanced which admittedly I haven't tried, but vanced worked like donkey dick. I said it.
Edit edit edit: ok assholes I got revanced set up. I am not an idiot but that was far from "5s of effort". Thanks for the recommendation.
What about ReVanced, NewPipe, or Grayjay?
Didn't know about Grayjay until now. Thanks for bringing it up - it looks really promising!
Firefox for Android can.
Hell yeah I am. Fuck them trackers!
I have firefox mobile with uBlock Origin and Sponsorblock addons and haven't seen a fucking ad in two years. No app needed.
Revanced is an app
My revanced setup literally shows as "Youtube" and functions identically, with sponsorblocking and adblocking. It let me disable shorts entirely and use the click-bait thumbnail circumventer. Took me 5 minutes to setup. I see a video on any app and click on it and it opens up in revanced no problem.
People act like 5 seconds of effort is worth what, 120$/year? After googling, closer to 160$/year? Lmao I wish that amount of money was inconsequential to me
Setting aside the conflation of "5 minutes" to "5 seconds" for a bit just to say: setting up ReVanced is a gigantic pain in the ass. I've only ever been on the android platform. I've sideloaded apps. Also been in the technology industry for almost 3 decades. The documentation is dog shit. The official user forum r/revanced, (iirc) is a fucking circlejerk. Their own faq and top pinned "definitive install guide" post is out of date and just plain wrong. Down thread, whenever someone has questions (inevitably, because the documentation is fucked (see previous)), some smarmy asshat has the audacity to direct the confused newb to the same flawed docs.
I swear, fanatics are their own worst enemies. Now, I'm not saying you're a fanatic. But sideloading that app in 5 mins (or seconds, depending on which sentence you're relying on)? Yeah, bullshit.
This has been my exact same experience trying to use ReVanced as well. Piped has a much more helpful developer and community, in my opinion.
I dont even have root. You download the apk for the recommended version of YouTube, which the revanced manager app tells you, select it - it auto picks all the patches - hit apply, wait - then hit install. Takes maybe 2 minutes to install. Then you're done. Never once had any difficulty beyond that. One time I used a different youtube version than what was recommended, worked fine just didn't have all the patches.
I dunno why you were trying to sideload it. That's not necessary. You can do all this in, I'll be generous and say 15-20 minutes. I've done it a few times now and done it for others too, so it usually only takes me 5 to 10. Depends on how fast their phone is to patch the apk.
Throw in another minute to fully disable the official YouTube app and route all YouTube links to open with revanced and you're set.
Yes, on an Android tablet, using the PocketTube app (which manages my YT subscriptions into groups), to forward a group playlist to YT in Firefox with uBo installed, without being logged into YT in FF.
I don’t have to rely on other 3rd party servers and services working properly, I don’t get ads, and YT gets little to nothing on me as an anonymous user beyond PocketTube just pulling the latest videos from my subscriptions.
I’ve been reading all these posts about blocker warnings being displayed and having to update the uBo filters, and I haven’t seen one of those yet, without doing any of that.
Revanced is quite the pain to set up, in my opinion, and the Revanced forums aren't super helpful. The developer refuses to publish a useable guide.
I switched to NewPipe x Sponsorblock, and that one was maybe 20 seconds of downloading and installing, not counting tweaking the settings to my liking. It's been much more stable for me. Revanced always crashed for me at exactly 3 hours of continuous use, which was a problem since I use those 8-hour ambient sound videos to help me sleep.
There's also LibreTube, but that one can be a lot more finicky, and you have to manually switch the instance, which becomes a pain in the ass after a while.
Revanced forums are straight-up toxic. Any setup questions are smugly redirected at the unusable documentation, as you pointed out. For some reason, there's an elitist attitude in that group.
My mans really forgot about Revanced and Newpipe huh…
(Somehow Vanced still works on my old S8 and that has now become my dedicated YouTube player until it, or Vanced, dies)