this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
750 points (98.0% liked)

memes

9899 readers
3198 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 hours ago

The mom should be Firefox and the kids the plugins.

[–] RigshawRick 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

It works really well, I want to support them and donate but I'm afraid YouTube will find a way to block them like they did to others...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] yamanii 1 points 10 minutes ago

There are twitch adblockers, it's just ublock origin that doesn't work on it anymore, people did find a way.

[–] reinei 1 points 38 minutes ago

But unless the page ends up as just a single canvas/image you'll still get all the HTML tags which can be stripped before your browser renders them?

[–] bi_tux 6 points 2 hours ago

I don't like to say this, but:

AI

[–] barnaclebutt 71 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Google went from don't be evil to fuck you all.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 6 hours ago

To put it shortly: "Went public".

[–] BreadOven 22 points 9 hours ago (1 children)
[–] trum_pam_pam 1 points 1 hour ago

Sadly, it's only for Android.

[–] finitebanjo 23 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

The fact that I cant go to YT and select play all on a channel anymore makes its primary use, music, pointless to me.

Another issue is Pandora, they keep forcing mobile site on Desktop User Agent setting and I work too many hours to go in and change the identifiers needed to make it work. Their app is busted as well, it asks for permissions and will semi-frequently crash when I dont give them permissions.

The whole internets basically becoming shit because of corporate incompetence. Not even willful malice, just idiocy.

[–] Anticorp 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

That's because they want you to pay a subscription fee for YouTube music.

For the Pandora app, they don't want you using it if you don't give them permission to do whatever it is they want to do.

It is malicious. It's often incompetence too, but it's also malicious.

[–] finitebanjo 5 points 10 hours ago

Even if they benefit from me using YT Music, they make no sales pitch at any point leading up to me seeing the button is gone and leaving the platform. They are just missing out on tons of ad revenue from users that otherwise would have stayed and listened for hours.

And Pandora also assuredly did not design their app to crash.

[–] kaotic 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

I don’t know this for sure, but I feel like this is something you can do with freetube. Regardless, it’s worth looking into.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Fun little piece of trivia: the primary use of YouTube is not, in fact, music.

[–] finitebanjo 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Fun little piece of trivia: my primary use of YouTube was, in fact, music, you illiterate nimrod.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 48 minutes ago (1 children)

Clearly. That's still in no way the primary intended use of YouTube because, you know, video?

You over redundant lossless head!

[–] finitebanjo 0 points 38 minutes ago* (last edited 37 minutes ago) (1 children)

Lets read my statement back, abridged

its primary use ... to me.

Is this like a sentence structure that doesnt exist in other languages or were a nonnegligible number of lemmings homeschooled?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

I mean, it's obvious what you meant, but that's still awful grammar on your part.

When read properly, your wording means that you are stating that YouTubes' primary use is music, which is useless to you.

Getting to your actual meaning requires interpreting around the literal meaning of what you wrote.

[–] apemint 12 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Fun little piece of trivia: Originally, nimrod used to mean "skillful hunter" (after Nimrod, the biblical figure) but then in 1940 Bugs Bunny sarcastically called Elmer Fudd a “poor little nimrod", and kids of the time not knowing the reference, simply assumed it was an insult on Elmer's character.

And that's how a cartoon rabbit single handedly changed the meaning of a word.

[–] ChronosTriggerWarning 1 points 1 hour ago

That's what's up, Doc.

[–] MimicJar 132 points 16 hours ago (20 children)

Unless I'm mistaken, none of those will block server-side ads.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Isn't there some law that you have to visually indicate whether a given piece of content is sponsored (ad) or not? Can't that just be detected by ad blockers to skip/hide ads?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago

I used to have a neat app on my phone that would play "Interdimensional Cable" bits, or just silence, over Spotify ads. It made it a lot more usable.

Their ad gets played, I don't have to hear it screaming at me. Win/Win right?

[–] [email protected] 31 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

There isn't a law that I'm aware of, but typically the ad needs to be un-skippable/seek-able, which means there will always be some indication to the video player of what the user can skip or fast forward through.

That doesn't mean Google couldn't just make fast forwarding/seeking a premium feature, but they'd lose a lot of user appeal if they did so they probably wouldn't do that

[–] SomeGuy69 15 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Germany has this law, sponsored segments must be clearly labelled. But one could just hash the ad anyways or just try to fast forward and if it doesn't work and it would be the ad.

[–] anonymous111 2 points 5 hours ago

I was thinking about this. Can we crowd source add hash markers, in a similar way to how Sponsor Block opperates but with hashes instead of time stamps?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Line must go up...

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 12 hours ago (2 children)
[–] Lev_Astov 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

That's something like a cleaver, so it's got a blunt tip that looks like it's going through her blouse.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›