• barnaclebutt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s so weird that YouTube is their second most profitable venture after adsense. It’s like they thought, we have a virtual monopoly on internet ads, Internet video, and web browsers. Let’s combine their power to make people watch non stop ads while tracking them worse than the CIA. Then, let’s be very surprised when people don’t like us and we get hit with antitrust lawsuits. Fuck Google.

    • DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      And all they would need to do is offer a YouTube ad free plan that’s at a sensible price without any of the YouTube music crap included.

      But no… They keep trying to shove the YouTube Premium bundle down our throats and no one wants it. We just want ad free.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Then, let’s be very surprised

      They’re not the least bit surprised. They did the math. The profit is more than the penalty.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Those fines are just the cost of doing business.

        Guess we should switch to incarcerating members of the board if we want them to really feel it.

  • tomatolung@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What’s funny to me is how they are in a fight for their company with the FTC, and they want to continue provoking people by increasing their revenue on the back of their users on a service they might have a technical monopoly on? Hmmmm…

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Provoking people and in dispute with FTC don’t relate but if the FTC broke them up then you would really regret not cashing in while you could

      • ironsoap@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Insofar as the FTC is in a legal case with google, American users do not have individual standing. But the court of public opinion is another venue without the need for such logic. As this is a political decision to enforce and proceed eight the case as much as an economic one, I would beg to disagree that provocation is in their best interest.

        Perhaps some would like to file a complaint? https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/submit-merger-antitrust-comment

  • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    The problem is when they start doing in stream ads, that will require something new. That said, people have been doing that with cable for a while, it’ll be real interesting to see what clever stuff comes out to detect them in stream

      • USSMojave@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I love how people will complain about ads on YouTube and then go on to complain that PeerTube sucks because “who’s going to pay the hosting fees?” 🙄 For the record I like PeerTube but Android clients are ass right now

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          That’s not my biggest complaint. The problem is it isn’t being pushed forward. It needs some serious work to even be remotely compared to YouTube.

          It is getting better but I don’t think the current leadership is agrees I’ve enough. I’d like to see it move to its own legal entity with dedicated budgeting. They need to raise some serious money to get competitive. Developers are expensive but they do much better work than a few French guys.

  • archonet@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    not pictured: the pihole just out of frame, holding a shotgun

      • SKBoA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It blocked YouTube ads when ads where served from other domains or subdomains. Now that they’re served from the same subdomains as videos, it’s not blocking anymore.

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Google bought YouTube before there were ads. The ads were always Google’s own ads from their own domains so Pihole could never block them.

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          all these people missing the part where I said “holding a shotgun” – I guarantee you’ll never see a YouTube ad on your network again if no data from their servers ever gets past your router. It’s not a subtle or precise option, but it is highly effective. Much like a shotgun.

          Then you can just use peertube, piped, or invidious when that gets fixed

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              never underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of spiteful pirates. It’s been a while since I last used invidious, but I can’t imagine it being permanently broken. in the meantime – Piped, then?

              If things get real stupid, we might have to employ AI to identify and strip ads from videos before mirroring. edit: Someone has, in fact, already trained an AI to identify ads in a video, with apparently 97.4% accuracy. So, the hard part’s already been done.

              • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                There has been some back and forth between Goolag’s countermeasures and Invidious’ countermeasures before arriving at the current situation, Invidious seemingly having lost the battle.

                From their git issue tracker:

                Hello,

                Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.

                Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore. (Some datacenter IPs may still work, but that’s a matter of time until they don’t anymore.) … This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.

                • lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You can still self-host Invidious. I’m doing this for 1-2 weeks without any problems. What does not work: Public instances hosted in data centers, because YouTube blocked lots of cloud IPs.

              • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Newpipe works on Android and Freetube works on Linux. I guess a local invidious instance works, too. But then, you’d lose pooling.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              explain the part where I misled anyone? Do you still get YouTube ads even after blocking YouTube’s servers? I’d be interested to see that, if so. Otherwise, I forgive your stupidity.

  • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    I am not for ads but what is so difficult about adding them to the video stream. This should make adblockers useless since they can’t differentiate between the video and the ad. I could just imagine it would be difficult to track the view time of the user and this could make the view useless since they can’t prove it to the ad customer. I have no in depth knowledge about hls but as I know it’s an index file with urls to small fragments of the streamed file. The index file could be regenerated with inserted ad parts and randomized times to make blocking specific video segments useless.

    • Ghostbanjo1949@lemmy.mengsk.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      You would also have to make skipping to any point in the video impossible then as folks could just jump ahead until they are past the embedded ad.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Out of order requesting of segments could be detected as well as faster requests. This would at least lead to a waiting time for the length of the ad.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        What if all ads are 30seconds long, would it be impossible to lock skipping anywhere for the first 30seconds of every video?

    • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I worked at a video ad server that offered a stream stitched solution going back to 2013. It comes down to development work/cost that the companies need to take on. Ultimately they would benefit from the cost required, but they wanted to be cheap and do a client side solution instead.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Ah yes that makes a lot of sense. Googles war on adblockers seems really expensive but we don’t know the numbers maybe it’s still cheaper.

        • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The HLS integration we offered definitely had a premium attached to it as well as an additional cost to the CDN that required the integration to live on. So it’s not cheap.

          It is weird that Google, with it’s infinite pockets, hasn’t pushed a stream stitched solution all these years until recently.

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It already happens, videos contain sponsored segments added by the creator.

      But even those have a solution in the form of Sponsorblock, which crowdfunds the location in the video containing sponsored segments in order to skip them.

      Google should face the fact that they won’t ever be able to win.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Sponsorblock works with static timestamps provided by users. This would not work if the ads are inserted at randomized times.

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Even at randomized times, we could create an algorithm to detect them.

          Especially since they are obliged by the EU to clearly label ads. So just look for the label.

          • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Ah ok I didn’t know the EU thing. For the algorithm it’s a cat and mouse game. You could try to detect it by hash signatures of the segments or some kind of image detection but they could in turn add bytes to change the signature or other attributes. Could require a lot of effort on the blocking site to have the indicators up to date.

        • Lennny@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          For even trying to come up with ideas of how Google can fuck us even harder, some of these posters need a necktie from Colombia.

    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Cause you need to insert it every time for every viewer. People get different ads and those ads obviously change over time. So embedding one ad into the video permanently makes no sense. I’m pretty sure YouTube does it the way they do cause the alternative is not feasible.

      • EveningPancakes@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You can still do dynamic ad serving in a stream stitched integration. It’s just that the content and the ads are being served by the same CDN, hence why you can’t block the ads without also blocking the content. In the manifest file there are m3u8 chucks, the file is essentially broken up into 5/10 second chunks, and when the video segment chunk is coming to an ad break, it stitches in dynamically an ad m3u8 chunk that the ad server dynamically selects based on the ads they currently have trafficked in their system.

      • h4lf8yte@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That wouldn’t make sense in the case of hls since the stream consists of multiple fragments of a video and you would just insert the ad fragments. This would only require changing the index file which could be done again and again with no effort and needs no reencoding of the video file.

  • sebsch@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is a whole topic in wasm called server side rendered DOM.

    I hardly think there is a chance to block adds when they achieve it to render all the content on their side.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ads are not always the same, not for everyone. Ads are localized in time, space and per person sometimes.

      An advanced adblock would just need to download the video from two sources match the videos and eliminate the differences as those differences will surely be ads.

    • SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Web devs busy at work making the internet more and more unusable each day. And they wonder why I despise them.

  • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Until Google demanded from its vassal (Mozilla) the removal of support for extensions. Mozilla doesn’t have enough resources to do without Google

  • ByteWelder@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    If they put the ads in the stream, you can just fast-forward. I don’t think it’ll work out well for Google.

    • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh, turns out each ad is 15 seconds long per an agreement to standardize playback.

      Oh, turns out you can’t skip the first 30 seconds of a video.

      Oh, turns out if the first 15 seconds doesn’t play, the playback disables entirely.

      ~Solutions a lowly forklift repair technician came up with in five seconds.

      Imagine what a Google developer might think of.