If you run a pihole, you can have it block youtube ads network-wide.
Comment on YouTube: 5 ads the norm now?
ranoss@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I stream through Roku (great for plex but no way to block ads on YouTube) and the ads got so bad I paid for premium.
I hate it because I’m reinforcing their shitty business choices but it was like being bullied everyday. YouTube is all I really use for entertainment aside from plex so that’s been one silver lining.
moody@lemmings.world 5 months ago
Moonrise2473@feddit.it 5 months ago
Did you try it?
From a technical point of view, YouTube ads are YouTube videos. So from a DNS point of view, you can’t block one but still continue to watch the other
ApathyTree@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
No you can’t, unless you block all of YouTube network wide.
scytale@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Not on a tv you can’t. They host ads on the same domain the videos are on, so blocking ads blocks the actual content as well.
Lonnie123@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Call me insane but people have NO problem paying for netflix/hulu/amazon/HBO and whatever else but theres a large amount of people who wont even consider paying for Youtube( presumably because the adblocking options are relatively easy to install and use, especially on desktop)
I pay for youtube premium and it is BY FAR the best value in entertainment for me. No ads for me or my kids, more money to creators, Its like $12/month or something and with that I also get a music service thats - for me - better than spotify/apple/napster or anything else really.
Theres a reason theres no completely free tier on the other services, and its because supporting things with ads alone takes lots and lots of ads. If you arent paying a dime for the service its tough to take your complains seriously
520@kbin.social 5 months ago
Because Netflix/Hulu/HBO/etc hosts TV shows that are expensive to make. YouTube hosts various types of content that is produced on shoestring budgets compared to TV shows.
Just because someone would pay to watch The Boys or Game of Thrones doesn't mean they'd pay to watch Let's Plays.
Lonnie123@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Thats an interesting point, but I think a very, very small percentage of people are actively thinking about how much the content they are enjoying costs to make when they are factoring in if its worth paying for. Enjoyment is the number 1 metric by a country mile.
If an expensive show is shit to watch or listen to, no one is going to pay for it. You couldnt pay me to watch Battlefield Earth again for example, I dont care how expensive it was to make.
520@kbin.social 5 months ago
True, but no one is going to pay for content with production values barely above tiktok videos - which is what most of YouTube's most famous content is.
There's also the fact that YouTube is more of a social media outlet than a content creator. Its content comes from people experimenting and assuming all risks for themselves. YouTube isn't commissioning works (bar one or two notable exceptions) and the biggest risks they assume is storage space holding dud content.
Streaming services actually create, or at least license, the content they host. Therefore it makes sense for them to be paid services. YouTube itself doesn't create or license shit.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
This is wild… seeing someone in earnest putting hollywood on the same level as some dude in their garage. This is zero chance I would ever pay 1 cent for 100 video essays because they don’t entertain me and they don’t feel worth anything. On the other hand yes it makes full sense to me to pay under $10 a month to watch unlimited productions which clearly cost a lot to make. The costumes, writing, research, and everything else that go into an actually immersive experience cannot be compared to some dude reacting to Linus TT being shitty. I will never understand not appreciating the difference here. The shocking part is that your opinion isn’t even that unpopular. Blows my fucking mind… For some of you, the only things in the world required to make video entertainment is an opinion and a cheap cell phone. 🤯
Moonrise2473@feddit.it 5 months ago
Main issue is logging in with my main Google account. I don’t want my google data to be accessible in the house from the speaker or the tv or the tablet.
I could pay more by buying YouTube family (or whatever they call it today) and share it with a burner account but that would be ridiculous.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I think one of the moral (?) objections to paying for YouTube versus paying for streaming services is that a streaming service actually creates (some) original content whereas YouTube merely hosts other people’s content. YouTube is only a facilitator and (ironically) not a creator. All of its content (both original and unoriginal) is produced by money that isn’t YouTube’s. They take zero risk and expect maximum returns.
Lonnie123@lemmy.world 5 months ago
YouTube hosts millions upon millions upon millions of videos for free, and they set up and maintain the ad network that gets creators the money (55% of the ad revenue goes to them, 45% to youtube). That is the value they provide, not the content they create. They dont take a “risk” per se (anymore, that risk was taken in the beginning), but they are 100% outlaying resources to maintain the youtube network/experience at great expense so that people can create, host, and profit on their website with no risk to the creator except wasted time.
Obviously not a simple thing to do otherwise tons of websites would be doing the same thing and YouTube would have lots of competition, but they don’t because its actually a very resource intensive process that literally - and I mean literally as in literally - no other company is willing to take on.
There is no moral objection, unless you find funding Google in any way immoral.
Its a mutually beneficial relationship with YouTube and the Creators. Youtube has reduced the risk of spending money on content creation but takes on all the work of maintaining everything youtube offers, and the creators have reduced the risk of financial/commerical resources needed to make money on their product. Neither could exist withou the other
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 5 months ago
I mean, yeah that’s mostly all true; but you’re kind of missing the point. Alphabet created the ad-soaked centralised monopoly you describe. They obviously shut down Google Video pretty quickly after buying YouTube. They bought-out or strangled competitors, leveraging their SE dominance, to get to where they are now, which is offering small pockets of content scattered about in an advertising platform. Alphabet knew what kind of monster they wanted to create and set about doing it. More adverts equals more profit. Profit must increase year on year. That’s how it works. I don’t begrudge Alphabet trying to fleece everybody - it’s how capitalism operates. I just don’t buy into the “good old Google letting me watch stuff for (almost) free” mantra.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Yeah just that one little tiny exception that literally no one could agree with /s