Youtube ads

[R0H1T]

The sooner you answer by not watching their videos anymore, the sooner they may stop blocking the ad blockers.

That's really hoping against hope, remember when you had no or virtually no ads on Youtube

 

[GerKNG]

hitting hard today... return yt dislikes is unfunctional, adblocker gets warnings and i had an ad as an overlay over the whole website (even with "aggressive blocking of ads and trackers" in Brave), videos stop playing after 10 seconds to tell me that i have an adblocker and a tutorial how i disable it.

that wasn't a thing until yesterday.

 

[AVATARAT]

I haven't seen a single instance when Google was caught something even remotely resembling user data. It's an urban legend. They may show prospective ad buyers that users in one town are more likely to click their ads than users in another town or something like that. But personally identifiable data? That would be illegal.

I know, but that's not really my data. That's something derived from my data through Google's own efforts. You're also agreeing to them sharing that data (i.e. not selling) by accepting the EULA. That's a far cry from "omg, Google is selling my data".

You can be identified by your mouse movement style (mouse tracking) as you can read here and on some other pages if you want to know of course.
So if someone can identify you - he must know who you are no?
How can he know that without a "database" where to compare?
It's illegal, yeah, but only if we can prove it

So those that own a database like that - will know who you are never mind what "username" you use on random internet websites
So everyone can be analyzed very well, if you ask why would someone need that - I don't care much about why someone psycho does things that he does. But after this technology works in the web space - someone uses it.

If you remember some years ago after some internet noise all pages started to ask aggressively about cookies that you must accept
Of course, most users just click "I agree" by default
So the "illegal" things, are not so "illegal"

 

[AusWolf]

You can be identified by your mouse movement style (mouse tracking) as you can read here and on some other pages if you want to know of course.
So if someone can identify you - he must know who you are no?
How can he know that without a "database" where to compare?
It's illegal, yeah, but only if we can prove it

So those that own a database like that - will know who you are never mind what "username" you use on random internet websites
So everyone can be analyzed very well, if you ask why would someone need that - I don't care much about why someone psycho does things that he does. But after this technology works in the web space - someone uses it.

If you remember some years ago after some internet noise all pages started to ask aggressively about cookies that you must accept
Of course, most users just click "I agree" by default
So the "illegal" things, are not so "illegal"

If Google wants to analyse how many "current things" I disagree with, they can be my guest.

 

[Bill_Bright]

You can be identified by your mouse movement style (mouse tracking) as you can read here and on some other pages if you want to know of course.
So if someone can identify you - he must know who you are no?

Identify me? Nah! Not buying that.

For them to "identify" me, they would have to know my real name, real home address, and more. Not happening, unless I gave it to them - and I didn't.

"They" (whoever "they" are) might know the IP address assigned to my modem by my ISP, but that does not identify me by name. And since I connect via Ethernet (and not wifi) they can only know the physical location of my PoP (Point of Presence) - the point where my ISP connects me to the Internet backbone. And in my case with this Ethernet connected PC, when I check Where Am I, it shows I am about 7 miles across town. This is also why when searching for places like the closest Runza, it shows I live in the Zip code of the other side of town, and therefore, shows a Runza across town instead of the one down the street.

My wifi connected laptop, on the other hand, connected through the same router and modem as my Ethernet connected PC, is pointing to the house just 2 doors down. Just another reason to connect via Ethernet whenever possible.

People need to be wary and concerned about privacy - no doubt about that. But there is a big difference between privacy and security. Your ISP and especially your cell phone carrier are much greater "security" threats than YouTube. This is because your ISP and cell phone carrier already have your real name, real address, your billing information, birthdate, and more. And they already monitor and log everything you do and link that to your real name, etc.

Cell phone carriers even know where you have been, who you have talked and texted with, what you have shared with them, where you are standing within a few feet, including the aisle of the store you are standing in! And they know which direction you are heading and how fast you are traveling. That is way more a security issue than simple privacy.

If worried about your privacy, stop giving away your personal information. Stop posting what you had for lunch and where and when you are going on vaction. Opt out of - well, just about everything. Don't provide your personal information. Use unique email addresses (see below). Clear your cookies often. Teach your children to stop sharing their information. Monitor your children. And stop posting your personal information.

When you post your personal information on line, then it can become a security issue.

And if you don't like a site's privacy policy, don't visit that site. It is YOUR choice.

****
How to create unique Gmail addresses with one registered address.

Let’s assume you created a Gmail account using the address of bilbo.baggins@gmail.com. Simply add the plus sign (+) after the username and Gmail will ignore everything after the + in the address. Example, bilbo.baggins+xyzsite@gmail.com or bilbo.baggins+zyxsite+account@gmail.com. Gmail will also ignore any plus sign (+) or dot (.) in the username. For example, bil.bo+bag.gins@gmail.com, bi.lbobaggins@gmail.com, and bilbobaggins@gmail.com all work. Any email sent to any of those address will come to your real address.

In this way, you can even intentionally post unique and fake personal information, then it magically appears elsewhere, you will know which site sold it.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Another one that thinks worldwide content delivery networks grow on trees...

You are....so very wrong, and projecting pretty hard.

Before you do anything else stupid, and construct an idiot strawman, let me explain this to you in really simple terms.
1) Youtube's transcoding to their format, storage on their hardware, and distribution throughout the world is free. It is not required for said content to exist...and thus is them doing something so they can benefit from your creation. If they released a requirement for file type, limitations on size, and provided other restrictions they'd require a grand total of nothing to store your content.
2) Read. Note that Alphabet is already selling my information to pay for their services...which at this point have been proven to be profitable without any outside influence simply by shaping who's search results show first.

3) Read the fine print. Youtube has the rights to virtually anything that you upload. Imagine for a moment that such a thing existed on TV...almost like America's Funniest Home videos...where you lose the rights to your content. 10k USD for syndication rights that are worth millions of dollars is kind of laughable...but that's where we are with Youtube.
4) Wah. Wah. Without Youtube we wouldn't have anyone who would step up to the plate. I mean, it's not like we've never seen giants die and replacement services pop-up in their place... Never mind the fact that answering machines were once a premium add-in service, but once the monopoly of Bell and the like was dissolved we got them for pennies.


If it isn't clear, Google makes plenty of money. Let's do the math. If a video gets 1,000,000 views, and has 4 commercials, with an average conversion rate of 0.1%, that's 4,000 sales. If the average gross profit for said conversion is 10%, that's 400 USD. So...anything less than 400 USD to put an add up is profitable. Google themselves are way more optimistic: Google Add Cost. You're telling me that a company who scrapes data, to feed people ads, whose platform can fit advertisements in at 2-4x as densely as televison can, is hurting for money and really requires that everybody buy premium? Well....then who's been bankrolling them? Who's been burning that cash for more than a decade to make this happen?


Waiting....all I hear is crickets.


OK, then how much does Goolge pay for content. They actually pay nothing...and only soak the cost of infrastructure. Imagine if you're Netflix, and suddenly 90% of your costs disappear because you don't have to buy any content to bring people in. It'd be great...but then people would start asking why it's 7 USD per month.... So we are clear, I absolutely hate some of the stuff on Netflix...but the next time you see Mr. Beast having a Netflix special you should really consider how it was paid for...because with Youtube it's obvious when he's hawking Mr. Beast Burger and whatever corporate sponsor he's running this week.
Would I do $3 a month for Youtube without ads? Yeah. It'd literally cover their infrastructure costs, and it wouldn't enrich Alphabet for the content they don't pay for. The thing is, Youtube premium isn't that cheap...so it isn't fair to compare with Netflix and kin. Thing is, even Hulu is basically going for ad revenue...and it's not about infrastructure. It's all about cost of content. That's just setting yourself up for failure, because any idiot can see that instead of delivering value Youtube is trying to get their money. To a consumer, that money should only flow if they're getting value.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If it isn't clear, Google makes plenty of money.

I agree with just about all you said, but don't understand the point of that comment.

So what if Google makes plenty of money? Does that mean they don't have a right to make more? Or they are evil if they try and therefore, deserve to be neglected or even cheated out of more?

And who is defining "plenty"? "Plenty" is a relative term. Alphabet/Google is way down the list of biggest corporations compared to Walmart, Saudi Aramco, Amazon, China National Petroleum, Apple, UnitedHealth and several others. Even CVS Health is bigger than them. (source)

YouTube is so popular because people like it. Is that YouTube's fault?

 

[P4-630]

YouTube is so popular because people like it. Is that YouTube's fault?

I blame

 

[Bill_Bright]

So you blame people for being innovative and successful?

 

[P4-630]

So you blame people for being innovative and successful?

Actually it was a joke, nevermind...

 

[Bill_Bright]

Ah! Okay. I wasn't sure since those who make it big are often blamed for anything under the sun that doesn't go right.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[plat]

You can be identified by your mouse movement style (mouse tracking) as you can read here and on some other pages if you want to know of course.

Yes and many sites can machine-id you (aka fingerprinting) by collecting info on the hardware on your machine. What browser you are using. How many mouse clicks you do. What section of the site you're reading. On and on. I used to use a random spoofer but this ended up being ineffective--I was identifiable because of it, not from its actions on my behalf.

Sorry, if this is off-topic but I feel it speaks to the surprising amt. of info we end-users are giving to these huge entities, without our awareness, which is then frequently monetized, over and above what they get from ad revenue. Who wants to read a EULA or a cookie notice anyway--all mumbo jumbo and boring. How well Google et al know this!

Brave browser with the modified uBlock Origin is still holding up very well for me against the YouTube anti-adblocker banner. But Firefox/YouTube is a closed door unless I purge, update and refresh.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is still fighting for user privacy, though, even if it's sliding downhill. They have a browser test called "panopticlick" which measures your browser's integrity against a variety of trackers and fingerprinting. I think there's a latest version out. I never score very well but I've pretty much given up on flailing around searching for something almost impossible to attain. As long as I don't get this YouTube garbage or ads stalking me around if I'm looking at area rugs on Amazon.

 

[bug]

You are....so very wrong, and projecting pretty hard.

Before you do anything else stupid, and construct an idiot strawman, let me explain this to you in really simple terms.
1) Youtube's transcoding to their format, storage on their hardware, and distribution throughout the world is free. It is not required for said content to exist...and thus is them doing something so they can benefit from your creation. If they released a requirement for file type, limitations on size, and provided other restrictions they'd require a grand total of nothing to store your content.
...

Well then, I guess that settles it. If that's free, then anyone can simply host their own CDN and enjoy their content ad free.

 

[SK-1]

I've used it for about 3 years and have had few issues. Solid browser for me. Lots of customization and a lot of cool features.

How is Opera GX? Does it sync well with Google account for bookmarks and the like?

I've used it for about 3 years and have had few issues. Solid browser for me. Lots of customization and a lot of cool features.

 

[AMF]

use firefox privacy and adblocker ultimate extension your problems will magically go away....

 

[AusWolf]

3) Read the fine print. Youtube has the rights to virtually anything that you upload. Imagine for a moment that such a thing existed on TV...almost like America's Funniest Home videos...where you lose the rights to your content. 10k USD for syndication rights that are worth millions of dollars is kind of laughable...but that's where we are with Youtube.

It does exist on TV. A few months ago, my brother and his metal band were invited to take part in a talent show. The contract they offered said that they waive any rights to their own content to the TV company. They took the contract to a lawyer despite being asked by the TV company not to, who advised them to refuse signing it at all costs, so naturally, they did.

 

[Morgoth]

now firefox is being effected by it
-
Installed adblocker ultimate. fixed it now for the moment

 

[Ruru]

I guess it's finally reasonable to pay for Premium for ad-free usage on PC. I have it currently anyway as I use iPhone and Premium lets you run the app in background, I often listen to mixes when I'm going somewhere.

Not paying for any other streaming platform etc. so 12EUR/month isn't THAT bad.

3) Read the fine print. Youtube has the rights to virtually anything that you upload. Imagine for a moment that such a thing existed on TV...almost like America's Funniest Home videos...where you lose the rights to your content. 10k USD for syndication rights that are worth millions of dollars is kind of laughable...but that's where we are with Youtube.

Good point there. Luckily I have only few gaming clips on my channel with under 1k views which aren't worth shit.

 

[the54thvoid]

Too many replies and people going off into ideological tangents for me to moderate. Oh well, have at it.

Just avoid bringing in the real BS.

 

[Ivan Bliminse]

Had enough of the Youtube warnings about adverts, already switched off my adblocker on the virtual setup (still getting the warnings)... Switched everything back on. Youtube no longer on my pc..!

 

[AusWolf]

I guess it's finally reasonable to pay for Premium for ad-free usage on PC. I have it currently anyway as I use iPhone and Premium lets you run the app in background, I often listen to mixes when I'm going somewhere.

Not paying for any other streaming platform etc. so 12EUR/month isn't THAT bad.

I disagree. Paying for a service is fine. Paying not to be annoyed is the equivalent of protection fee in tribal cultures which I cannot abide by.

 

[Ruru]

I disagree. Paying for a service is fine. Paying not to be annoyed is the equivalent of protection fees in tribal cultures which I cannot abide by.

I get your point. It's like a paywall.

 

[AusWolf]

I get your point. It's like a paywall.

Kind of. Or the equivalent of "if you give me 5 quid, I won't kick you in the balls". You could say paying 5 quid to avoid an unpleasant experience is worth it, but I say, why the need for the unpleasant experience in the first place?

 

[Ruru]

Kind of. Or the equivalent of "if you give me 5 quid, I won't kick you in the balls". You could say paying 5 quid to avoid an unpleasant experience is worth it, but I say, why the need for the unpleasant experience in the first place?

Not a bad metaphor to be honest.

 

[Night]

If nothing, I find the paradox funny. Youtube displays their ad, advertising their Premium to stop seeing ads. Think I'm done with Youtube.