• IronKrill@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’ll be that guy and say this isn’t crappy design and shouldn’t be in this community. We’ve already got posts filling top of all we don’t need more where they don’t belong.

        • Christer Enfors@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well yes, nobody likes ads. But think of it this way - ads are “democratic” in a way, because it means everybody can “afford” or access that which is financed by the ads. Most websites are expensive to run and have to make money somehow to pay for itself - as much as I dislike ads, I’m not sure what the alternative would be? Should we have to pay to access each and every website? I don’t know what the best solution would be, to be hones.

          • LoafyLemon@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ads have nothing to do with democracy; they are forced upon us and serve no other purpose than to manipulate you into buying a product. That’s text-book capitalism for you.

            Personally, as an open-source developer, I use crowd-funding to cover the expenses for the websites and software I provide. You will find no ads or tracking on my pages, and the same can be said for the majority of open-source projects.

            The problem is rarely tied to cost; usually, it’s about greed and the never-ending chase for higher profit margins.

            Mind you, I’m just a single individual with a single experience, but if I can find a way to get paid for my work without forcing people to watch the visual diarrhea, so can the giants like Google.

      • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even excusing the policy, the design is actually pretty shit though. We’re all just used to it so it feels default and normal.

      • Sabre363@sh.itjust.worksOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        While this is a policy I don’t like, it’s also something that is purposely destroying the usability of the Internet. Which I think constitutes a bad design.

    • Sabre363@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would argue that pop-ups like this are an intentionally crappy design meant to be frustrating and get in the way. But, I understand what your saying, this is perhaps not the best suited community for this post.

      • IronKrill@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think the difference here is I view “crappy design” as something badly made or poorly executed. What you describe I would consider to be “asshole design”: perfectly well-made, but with bad intentions. I can see why you would have the different definition though, and considering the Reddit subs had a lot of these same definition issues it’s not surprising they continue here.

      • King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How dare you inconvinience me for using your stuff for free r/choosingbeggars

        • TALL421@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          How many times are you gonna lick a major corporations boot for no benefit in this single thread? Cause this is already the third time and it already made me want to barf the first time.

        • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          King’s behaviour is typical of the lefty democrat who never had a job in his life. So eager to betray America to the democrats technocrat overlords. Disgusting.

          • King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah the guy reminding you stuff costs money is the jobless one, stop projecting in my inbox bro, cringe. google bad videos free.

              • King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                You mean the guy who’s trying to watch videos for free and finger points his political beliefs if you disagree with him instead of replying with arguments? I agree with you.

    • Squorlple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unsolicited ads are implicitly anti-user, especially when they impede or interrupt access to content.

      • King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        1 year ago

        So you buy youtube premium instead? Or are you an entitled freeloading POS who shamelessly asks for uninterrupted free content? 😂

        • drkt@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The internet used to be free before corporations got here.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It was never free. It was paid for and used by universities and research institutions. There was no world wide web, just gopher, ftp, usenet, chat, telnet. Any kind of advertising was really frowned upon, it was basically treated like a library. But, there wasn’t a lot to do there.

          • bemenaker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            1 year ago

            How are they supposed to pay for the infrastructure that you’re using to watch it. Do you even have a clue what it costs to run YouTube for a month? The ads keep the servers up. BTW it’s in the tens of millions a month if not more to run YouTube.

            • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              No one has a clue what it ‘costs’ because YT isn’t honest about revenue, and being a subsidiary its P&L statements can be adjusted to spread any narrative around profitability it considers useful. In the context of Alphabet its operating cost is probably negligible.

              You’re already paying them data tribute through daily interaction with much of the corporate web.

            • drkt@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I literally don’t have a job and host a website with 249971 requests served april-october. This shit isn’t expensive, google makes it expensive. Before YouTube we just had other websites with videos.

              e: I got it wrong, it’s 525154 (valid) requests april-october with 85340 unique IPs after filtering my own.

              • Jako301@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Requests cost nothing, data storage and bandwidth usage do.

                People upload over 500 hours of videos every minute, that’s 256.320.000hours each year. Let’s say that most of it is lower quality instead of 4K, so each hour takes 0.5GB of storage. That’s 128PB every year. Youtube overall size probably reached Exabytes in the last few years.

                Their daily bandwidth usage probably ranges way into Petabytes too, something you were orders of magnitude away over the whole life cycle of your site.

                • drkt@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Literally everyone is not listening to what I’m saying so I’ll just say it here again as clear as I can:

                  YouTube costs money because infrastructure costs are exponential. It doesn’t have to be that way. Host your own shit, it’s so unbelievably cheap.

                  I have my own live-streaming infrastructure. I have my own music streaming infrastructure. I have my own video sync infrastructure that so far has not even stuttered for people on the other side of the globe even with 30+ people watching at once. This costs jack shit to do. Spread it out. Host your own.

                  This is of course ignoring that corporate executive pay is insane and you could definitely cut that in half, but we don’t. We pass the costs of the fifth execute yacht to the consumers, and here we have like 5 people defending that structure as if it just has to be that way. It doesn’t. It wasn’t like that before Google started owning everything.

                  And yes, for the record, I am not using YouTube. YouTube currently barely works on my browser so I just don’t use it.

                  • bemenaker@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    And if you were streaming the volume of videos they are, your costs would be astronomical too. Your argument is completely senseless.

              • filcuk@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you know the enormous amount of data it takes to stream video? And how much infrastructure to have such seamless loading as youtube does, caching copies of popular videos all across the world?

          • King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            There used to be a free youtube before google? Someone has to volunteer to pay for the site servers unless you pay them my ignorant bro. Youre always free to stop using the evil corporation sites but you want their stuff for free instead and complain about it. Get a grip

              • King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                1 year ago

                Youre the one begging them for free content here, stuff costs money get a job bum

                  • King@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    13
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No youtube for you then, being disabled doesnt mean the universe owns you free videos and you can insult others for reminding you that stuff costs money

                    Edit money not even required just watch ads, the entitlement jesus

                • drkt@feddit.dk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I literally don’t have a job and host a website with 249971 requests served april-october. This shit isn’t expensive, google makes it expensive. Before YouTube we just had other websites with videos.

                  e: I got it wrong, it’s 525154 (valid) requests april-october with 85340 unique IPs after filtering my own.

                  • King@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    8
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    “Videos always existed on internet” People upload 500 hours of video to youtube per minute how simpleminded are you Jesus Christ

        • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Where was this attitude when Netflix announced account sharing crackdowns? I buy premium to support the people I watch but still, what a wild comment.

          • King@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            What does netflix not want acc sharing have to do with youtube needing money to host their content and pay their creators? Dont like their new policy dont buy it are u looking for something to be mad about? Tf

            • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because they’re both doing it for the exact same reason. Netflix doesn’t want people using their service for free and neither does Youtube. Netflix didn’t have ads so they cracked down on accounts. Youtube does, so they’re cracking down on adblockers.

              I was fine with Youtube locking their 4k+ resolutions behind premium but they’re slowly tightening their hand more and more to make it ‘profitable’. Hell, the queue feature is premium now. Using the app on your phone while it’s ‘locked’ is a premium feature. Things that should be free are being stuffed into the ‘premium’ package but because that wasn’t enough, they’re trying to block adblockers. Making people pay for what they were getting for free, while it makes sense from a business perspective, never goes over well. Premium is really only worth it if you want the people you watch it get paid more, everything else can be done by third party players.

              Although like Reddit, they might kill those off next.

              • King@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                “Should be free” ? You think only 4k videos cost them money? Bandwidth and storage for lower res is free? How naive jesus

                • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Lol yes because people are already developing third party apps with those same features for free, ya duncecap.

                  Also if Youtube made their site “pay to access” we’d watch it die within the month.

                  • King@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nice logic, movies can also be downloaded for free via “third party”, does that mean studios should make them free because of that?