• @Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    581 year ago

    Except they want to send you videos. The power is with you, the viewer. Without you, advertisers will have no reason for buying ads. Google can’t collect your data either. Realise that you have this power. Youtube is not like electricity or clean water. We can live without it if push comes to the shove.

    • JohnEdwa
      link
      fedilink
      English
      251 year ago

      They don’t want to send us videos, they want to serve us ads and annoy us into buying Youtube Premium, which someone using adblocker won’t see, or need. From their point of view they would win either way - if they successfully block adblockers it either converts us into ad watchers, premium subscribers, or we fuck off and stop using their bandwidth.

      • "no" banana
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        It’s funny because I pay for premium and have noticed a worse experience since this was revealed. They don’t seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

        • lastweakness
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They don’t seem to check if a user has adblock and pays.

          They definitely seem to have checks in place for it. I have Family Premium and so far no issues at all.

          Edit: to clarify, not a fan of any of this. Just saying it does work for me

          • "no" banana
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Weird. It’s not happening to me today. Maybe it was something else.

          • @Malfeasant@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Well, I don’t pay for premium, and I use an adblocker, and I haven’t had any problems. Not having a problem doesn’t prove anything if they’re only targeting a subset of their users…

          • @voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            The article says that this isn’t happening for all users, which indicates that they’re still experimenting with it and haven’t fully rolled it out yet.

    • @ElectroNeutrino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      241 year ago

      To be fair, what they want is to make money off of you, be it through metadata or through advertising. It’s just that sending you videos happens to be the model which they use to get the metadata or advertising income.

    • BraveSirZaphod
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

        When you take your comment to its logical end though your comment makes no sense, as hence there’s now no one to watch the videos and earn money from them doing so.

        You can’t force someone to consume your content, and if you earn money by people consuming your content, then the power is ultimately with them.

        Plus, all this discussion, we’re assuming that serving ads is the only way that Google can make money off you when watching the videos, which is not true. They can do the same kind of things they do with Gmail and make money from that.