Another great article from 404 Media highlighting the power that the tech giants have amassed over how how we use the internet.
This brings me, I think, to the elephant in the room, which is the fact that Google has its hands on quite literally every aspect of this entire saga as a vertically integrated adtech giant.
This extreme power over the adtech and online advertising ecosystem is one of the subjects of an FTC antitrust suit against Google.
As much as I'm against Google: why are the the bad guys in this specific instance? They are in many other instances, absolutely. But here, they dare to block a service that legitimately costs a ton of money from being used without them making anything in return. That's not the usual evil corp BS they pull. That's rather reasonable if you ask me. Let's not exhaust ourselves in that and focus on the real Bullshit they try to pull like their web manifest ad nightmare!
A lot of people have become entitled to the idea of the "free internet." In some cases, it's understandable, like for social media where the platform is doing very little work and nearly all the value is coming from the users. I think especially in Youtube's case, people are squinting and looking at it like a social media. They wonder why Youtube's taking such a big cut when they think the content creators are the ones providing the value.
The issue here is that the complexities of video hosting, especially at the speed and quality Youtube provides, requires a ludicrous amount of effort and money. Youtube is providing a platform that is nearly unthinkable, something I consider to rival the entire television broadcasting sphere. The idea that such a colossal undertaking could be achieved without requiring revenue generation is simply naïve, and it's incredible to think that a free version is even offered at all. Nobody ever really thinks about that though, they just look at it as another platform like Facebook or Reddit, and think a lazy megacorp is stuffing their pockets for nothing.
You can see how hard they optimized by watching a very old video you uploaded yourself.
Exanple of mine:
I uploaded 3 videos some time (2x 9 years and 1x 6 years) ago with about 1min of runtime each.
They do not get clicked much.
Timing it, it took Google about 3 seconds to view it the best available resolution.
Only 3 seconds is insane if one remembers how long a drive needs to just spin up from standby. And that is not even with a cached video.
Now I wanna see how long it would take a competitor to achieve the same performance.
I remember some time ago when YT took about 10-15sec to do the same task. They heavily improved their performance. Even for low performance content.
Sad that some are so entitled.
Because this isn't just about "making anything in return" any more than neo-Nazis are booted from platforms "just for having different opinions." More people are using adblockers on YouTube because YouTube isn't simply displaying commercial advertisements, they're pushing "ads" for scams, malware, and all manner of heinous and/or sketchy content. Even separate of that, the frequency of ads and the presence of minutes-long ads you need to manually skip have made watching content difficult and unpleasant, if not unworkable. Adblocker usage is as much about restoring functionality to the site as anything.
All of these issues have been raised with YouTube, but rather than address the complaints by adjusting how ads are selected and served they've decided the only solution is for you to pay them monthly, not just a few bucks but as much as (or more than) the major video streaming services. All of this for content they do not make, at a price point far beyond what they need to be profitable. It's greed for the sake of greed, pure and simple.
If they are so annoying, don't watch at all? Go outside, read a book, watch Jellyfin/Plex.
Plenty of activities to substitute YT time.
Yes it is. Why do you think they force you to pay for YT Music when all you want is an ad free experience? I tell you why: people will come to the realization that it is stupid to pay for two music streaming services at the same time, so they will cancel their Spotify subscription. This will make it extremely hard for other services to stay competitive. It's no longer enough that their app is perhaps slightly better, or that they have the better algorithm, no one will be willing to pay the extra 11 € per month for just that. So eventually, these competing music streaming services will die (maybe with the exception of Apple Music and Amazon Music). Once YouTube has the monopoly on the music streaming market, they can raise the prices again. They are using one monopoly to build a second one. And a third one. And so on, until everything is owned by Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple, or Microsoft and no one is able to compete with anything anymore. And the worst part is, that Google doesn't even deserve any of YouTube's success. YouTube's success comes from its creators. All that Google ever did is to provide some servers and some bandwith, which arguably is expensive, but it's not really an achievement. They didn't even invent YouTube, they just bought it, made it big, and now abuse it to conquer more and more markets.
YouTube was originally free, and without video ads. It remained so for some time after Google bought it. They can operate YouTube without video ads at all.
YouTube lived off venture capital, search sponsorships, and content hosting. Venture capital is long dried up. Search sponsorships are just advertisements but clogging your searches. Content hosting isn't really needed anymore since every large media company has their own streaming platform. Lot has changed since 2006.
What?! Have you checked how big a 4k video is lately? Where do you suppose the money for that should come from?
Who decided to provide 4K video? (Hint: it wasn't me.)
1080p did nothing wrong
Good thing people didn't freak out when they tested putting 4k videos behind membership
i agree, its about choice. no one should be complaining about what google is doing [with youtube].
if we dont like it, we should choose a different product.
When a corporation is willing to lose billions of dollars to capture an audience, effectively locking out any competition, and then counters any possible avenue to blocking their monopolistic stance, your first statement shouldn't be about choice, because there isn't one.
i choose not to utilize youtube in any capacity. my problem here is solved.
So which free streaming service allowing for profit sharing on ad revenue which has essentially become the only name brand in the industry have you chosen to move to?
Or is your choice that you have to go without something you want because you disagree with the one single service offering it? Oh by the way, that company got that way through anti competitive practices to make sure that only they were able to operate this type of service.
Nobody pays attention to anything beyond the current moment when it comes to shitty corporate behavior like this.
Every large company that isn't privately owned is going all in on this anticompetitive monopolistic bullshit. A few of the privately owned ones still care about customer good will, even if just for long term profitability. Anything on the stock market doesn't do anything for the long haul except for undercutting the competition early on before they were close to a monopoly, like youtube did.
Yet, by AdBlocking them, you are doing fuck all against their "monopolistic stance". You are strengthening their monopoly all the same. And to be clear: I don't want to blame here. Block YouTube ads, I'm doing that too. I'm more irritated by how it's somehow spun as evil that YouTube dares to want money for a service they provide.
If Google had not shut down competition by outcompeting them, do you think those competitors would be free? If not, your argument is besides the point all together.
One can be the "bad guy" without being outright evil. Their advertising tactics are heinous and exploitative, and their revenue sharing with the people actually making their content is tricky to exploit without utilizing the same shitty practices Google uses.
This is also about a relatively minor amount of users. Yes, most people on the fediverse are probably going to be running ad-blockers… but that's an incredibly small amount of people. This whole thing is about squeezing a few extra ounces of blood from "their" stone. Not a righteous battle against a foul mass who are scandalously stealing from hard working Google employees.
As I said: I'm not saying that one has a moral obligation to watch the 1000000th stupid raid shadow legends ad. Google would try and exploit us for all we're worth, so IDGAF about their revenue. It's just that all those posts along the lines of "Google tries to earn money by me using their service,! The audacity!" Rub me the wrong way. There are plenty of examples here where people try to spin their use of adblockers into some white knight story and claim moral high ground for doing so. That is hypocrisy in my eyes and this hypocrisy is annoying me. Nothing wrong with "yeah Google, I'm going to take your shit just like you help yourself to mine on a regular basis, because fuck you". Just… Let's not try to make this some moral thing, alright?
So basically you feel icky? You have a moral problem with people who have moral problems?
Cry me a fucking river. The problem isn't that Google is some nefarious Snidely Whiplash character, cackling madly as they tie some helpless waif to some train tracks… theyre "just" a business, doing business things. The problem is, at their scale, it removes opportunity and mobility of any kind of competition. Any time they squeeze their rock, it has massive implications not just in the technical landscape, but also in peoples ability to control their own life, as it pertains to the ever-growing digital landscape.
I'm sorry that all you can see is people who want free stuff… but that seems to be your own insecurities eating at you. And reflects your own motivations. Not anyone elses.
Yeah, why don't the users just pick a better option in this monopoly.