Live data from Hacker News

Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

jayd.ml

351–360 of 728 posts

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negative proof. We've no obligation to prove your point for you. You claim we're stealing. In Texas, theft is a crime per Sec. 31.03: > THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property. Please link the law, and jurisdiction, that is broken when I view a YouTube video and don't view the ad. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.31.ht…

I don’t give a shit about laws. Common sense and morality are what matter to me and taking without paying will always be stealing according to both. I’m not trying to prove anything to you, other than how juvenile it is to hide behind laws and technicalities I guess.

> Common sense and morality

Hah! Someone after my own heart. Well, since we're not talking law, let's get into it!

First of all, all profit is theft. Your boss and shareholders are only able to make money because they steal margin from your labor.

In this case, Youtube may be providing a platform, but what it gets in return is far more than it gives back to creators. Creators have no rights when it comes to Youtube - I can list many who were nixxed from Youtube because they violated a specific subset of neoliberal, puritanical "ethics." For example, Youtube will delist or demonetize videos that have too many swear words in them, or videos that discuss things that aren't illegal but Youtube doesn't like, such as adblockers or emulation software.

This is unethical. Youtube has no value outside of its creators. Yet it has total say over what kinds of content creators are allowed to make, and it sets the prices for creators, keeping the lion's share for itself. That is theft.

Youtube abuses its users as well, cramming features we don't want down our throats, like "Shorts" (puke) and increasingly longer ads. I know for a fact not enough revenue is going to the creators because they still need to seek external sponsorship, resulting in double-ads: youtube ones, and then sponsored portions of videos. Youtube also constantly enshittifies the UI. And, despite its puritanical neoliberal ethics, it does basically nothing about the extensive racist content on its platform (any video featuring black people doing just about anything will have years-old comments on it with racist content). And don't even get me started on the freakshow that is Youtube Kids. Just search "Elsagate."

Youtube feeds into the demonstrably mentally unhealthy attention economy and engages in dark pattern UX.

Youtube is undergoing platform enshittification, making things worse for its creators and users in order to extract as much profit as possible. It's not illegal, but it's certainly unethical. Given their shittiness, it's completely reasonable to leverage tooling to block their shitty ads. And don't pretend like this harms creators in any meaningful way. If I buy one t-shirt from a creator I like (which I do, frequently), I've given them more revenue per head than if I watched every single one of their videos, start to finish, one hundred times, with no ad blocking.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#352
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is nonsense. Among other things, the YouTube app on Apple TV is superior to the one on Android TV. No loud startup sound, the back button exits the app rather than popping up a menu asking "if I'm sure" or if I want to go to a screensaver mode - clean straightforward UI.

I guess they just hate their users lmao

Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. And i think it’s fair to say the best and brightest at Google aren’t turning their attention to YouTube lately. Except maybe to make training datasets for Gemini N+1 :)

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#353
Reminds me of a comment I wrote just recently:

» I think that anyone who is technically sufficiently well-versed, is going to avoid that hellscape like the plague. So then, who is the actual audience for this stuff? My guess would be: the old folks' home around the corner, which, sooner or later, will be forced to upgrade those TVs to smart-TVs. And once those old folks put in their credit card numbers or log in with their Amazon accounts, there goes a lot of people's inheritance.

My own elderly father is wise to the scam, but not confident in his ability to navigate the dark patterns. So now, he is afraid to input his credit card information into anything digital, essentially excluding him from cultural participation in the digital age. « [1]

With that frame (the target audience for smart TVs is old people), "needing glasses" is not all that far-fetched.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45462816

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#354

I used to pay for YouTube premium. I stopped doing that, uninstalled the apps, and now use it through the browser with adblockers. (Yes, on my phone and iPad.) It works so well I’ve gotten at least half a dozen neighbours to do the same. If you haven’t tried it, it’s a definitive step up in UX.

Anyone else notice that most youtube ads are really bad . Seeing a product in a youtube ad now causes me to be more likely to believe it's a ripoff. Things like a cheap $5 fan being sold for $60 as roughly: "Super efficient A/C that will save you $100s on your electricity bill and can cool a room down in just minutes"

That's just... every ad. I mostly avoid products that I see in ads (like TV, radio and internet ads) ironically.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent should include text not just a link. UBlock Origin Lite pulled from the Firefox extensions after being flagged for policy violation, now only available from GitHub.

"The Firefox version of uBO Lite will cease to exist, I am dropping support because of the added burden of dealing with AMO nonsensical and hostile review process. " https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBOL-home/issues/197#issueco...

There is no need to use uBOL on Firefox, just use the normal version.

EDIT: But yeah, the Mozilla reviewers are very hostile, also had to fight with them for one of my add-ons. It's ridiculous that spam and malware add-ons get a pass but privacy-conscious add-ons get rejected.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#356
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is piracy. Most advertising supported content is made freely available to you with the expectation that you will view the advertising. That expectation is not a contract and was a decision made without your involvement. You have no obligation to perform to someone else's expectations. If the content is made freely available you are free to watch it whichever way you choose. Choosing not to view the a…

Morally, it is piracy IMO. If you applied the rule universally, the site would go out of business and then there would be no video to see.

All things supported by ads should go out of business. Ads are 100% morally wrong.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#357

There are 0 videos on my YouTube homepage, just a screen asking me to turn on history. Just the way I like it. Here’s what I did: Go into the YouTube app, settings, manage all history, under the history tab hit Delete -> delete all time. Then go to controls (still in the manage all history dialog box under settings), under YouTube history hit Turn off. It says “pausing…” Hit Pause, and Got it. It’s been exactly 3 mon…

I see the same screen and wonder why they don't suggest videos based on subscriptions. I assume they figure no suggestions will nag people into enabling history.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Morally, it is piracy IMO. If you applied the rule universally, the site would go out of business and then there would be no video to see.

Is it piracy to pirate a pirate? Most of the content that I view on YT is old live concerts uploaded by fans. Did goog pay a license for those pirate recordings? Who should goog pay? The label? The pirate who uploaded? The OG pirate who recorded the show? So doesn’t this make them pirates too? These are honest questions and it seems way too fuzzy to me to be making moral judgments about the whole mess.

I think saying that it is morally piracy is a little bit of an overstatement.

I think one does have the right to block ads on one’s machine if one chooses.

However, personally, because of the “if ad blocking was universalized, the services I appreciate would likely not exist” reasoning, I choose not to block ads.

As for other things like “muting/covering ads on screen”, yeah, that does seem a bit fuzzy. Sometimes I’ll even use a browser extension to fast forward an ad somewhat.

I do think this is something for the individual to decide how they will deal with ads. When I mute an ad, I don’t think I’m really free riding? For one thing, I don’t think it is contrary to the expectations of those being sold the ad slot. Me fast forwarding the ads a bit probably is contrary to their expectations, so I don’t have as good justification for it, but I don’t feel like I’m cheating when I do it. (Or, if I do, it is because the particular ad is objectionable enough that I’m willing to stick it to the advertiser)

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#359
post #353

Reminds me of a comment I wrote just recently: » I think that anyone who is technically sufficiently well-versed, is going to avoid that hellscape like the plague. So then, who is the actual audience for this stuff? My guess would be: the old folks' home around the corner, which, sooner or later, will be forced to upgrade those TVs to smart-TVs. And once those old folks put in their credit card numbers or log in with…

I was going to disagree by saying that the menus are extremely confusing to the elderly. However if the goal is to extract money from them by generating confusion about what is an on-demand vs a streaming piece of media; you could not design a better software system. Reminds me of the theory that micro-transaction revenue in video games has driven menu UI in the direction of confusing and disorientating the player.

Re: Someone at YouTube Needs Glasses: The Prophecy Has Been Fulfilled

#360
post #352
post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess they just hate their users lmao

Never ascribe to malice what can be sufficiently explained by incompetence. And i think it’s fair to say the best and brightest at Google aren’t turning their attention to YouTube lately. Except maybe to make training datasets for Gemini N+1 :)

In the case of industry giants malice should be assumed.
Post reply on HN