91–100 of 277 posts
YouTube Premium is easily the best subscription I pay for every month. Use a VPN, set it to Argentinia, go to youtube.com/premium, sign up with your regular credit card and use without a VPN as usual from now on while paying 2 USD / month.
This is misleading. From my experience watching Youtube on a Samsung TV, the quantity are sometimes spread across an entire video, at intervals set by the creator. I.e. 8 adverts over a 1 hour video. This is also no evidence that these adverts are not skippable. I don't like Youtube's advertising, but this tweet is very low effort.
My guess is that since unskippable ads could already be a couple minute long, they are testing with shorter ads in that timeframe while still filling up the time block.
This isn’t very interesting without knowing how long the ads run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I've got a youtube account, but have all history and tracking disabled, and although youtube obviously still tracks me, I never use autoplay or any recommendations) The same way as one did in the past: 1) search for something interesting, 2) look at the videos, 3) if you like a creator, subscribe to the RSS feed for their channel
> if you like a creator, subscribe to the RSS feed for their channel I find this a totally unusable model to the point I don't understand who the heck pays for paywalled websites (for me it would be a waste because I would only read some 2.5 articles on the same website a year). I just search for a particular subject (maybe also specify the author) whenever I want/need and have time to watch/read something. Subscribe…
For a simpler example, take webcomics. I created a category in my RSS readers for the webcomics I like. If I feel bored and want to read a webcomic, I just open my reader, click that category, and immediately see the most recent one I haven't read yet. I can instantly get exactly what I want, without any recommendation engine attached. But I don't get any notifications – I only look at it when I feel like it.
The same with youtube creators. If I feel like watching videos of a certain kind, I look at the channels I subscribed to of a certain topic, and see if they’ve got something interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already pay with my data. Why would I also pay them money?
I pay for my car. Why would I pay the supermarket for the groceries it will transport?
I need to use YT's infrastructure when viewing any YT content. Targeted advertising is how I pay for access to that infrastructure, and how they cover their costs.
I don't pay to enter a grocery store - I may get an extra discount if I let the business track my purchases, but that's not required. I also definitely don't need a car to pick up my groceries. Most of us do pay taxes for the roads and sidewalks we use to get there, but they're still perfectly free to use if we are unemployed (and those are more analogous to "the internet" than to YT itself).
This is misleading. From my experience watching Youtube on a Samsung TV, the quantity are sometimes spread across an entire video, at intervals set by the creator. I.e. 8 adverts over a 1 hour video. This is also no evidence that these adverts are not skippable. I don't like Youtube's advertising, but this tweet is very low effort.
Unskippable ads before a video have been around for a while (no skip button). It just has been limited to a couple ads. The tweet is claiming this number has increased lately. My guess is that since unskippable ads could already be a couple minute long, they are testing with shorter ads in that timeframe while still filling up the time block. This isn’t very interesting without knowing how long the ads run.
The UI also looks exactly like Youtube on TVs, which from my experience, does this '3 of 10' for ALL adverts across an extended video.
This tweet has nothing to prove what they're saying, my guess is they're trying to stir up controversy.
edit: it's pretty clear that most here are more interested in sharing their dislike for ads or preferred adblocker solution, rather than even considering the legitimacy of the claims made in the tweet :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I already pay with my data. Why would I also pay them money?
If you are running an adblocker they are almost certainly losing money on you. I also AdBlock but I don't pretend it's profitable for them.
Folks, just pay for YouTube Premium. In my family, between my kids and myself we watch more YouTube than Netflix/Disney+/Hulu combined so the YouTube family plan is the best value going.
> just pay for YouTube Premium This would imply signing-in. I don't sign in and reset the cookies regularly because I don't want my history tracked and suggestions personalized. But Okay, I would sign-in and pay, if every video page had a download button and the whole thing would give me an API exposing all the features reliably (so I could use it easily in 3-rd party players with search and suggestions).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also on Android*, unfortunately. If you want adblocking youtube on iOS I recommend using Safari with the vinegar (paid) extension. (And wipr for general adblocking) ETA: If I remember correctly, Brave Browser also has ad blocking built in. For youtube as well.
A free alternative is Firefox Focus browser which adblocks by default. Problem is it nukes each session after you close it, so not very persistent
Imho, the big question here is, if there's actually a trend. Was it easier, 10 years ago, to make money from a website, with just one single (non-animated) banner on top, than it is today with a website that's plastered with animated banners, link ads, and other stuff? Was it easier, 10 years ago, to make money from a video platform, with just one single skip-able ad at the start of each video - than it is today with…
I think so. I don't believe it will die completely, but it will crash big time.