Google know who they're streaming videos to. They know this from the back-end. They absolutely do not require a script running in the browser to phone home about it in order to count "views". All the telemetry they need they can get from existing traffic; the additional telemetry supplied by scripts is mostly just for Bad Reasons and it's morally fine to block it.
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
384 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
75489 readers
2590 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Tldr: youtube forced ai into video monitoring and it keeps killing videos it shouldn't, so instead of saying Ai is bad they're blaming af blockers because why not lie when there's no repercussions?
YouTube views are dropping because they are using AI to vet and cull age innappropriate content from minors. the problem is the ai is very bad at its job and marks way too many videos as not advertiser friendly, which effectively kills YouTube promoting that video in feeds. this is the default view for new accounts, so you have to specifically turn off parental controls to see a normal feed. this started happening about 4 months ago. a number of channels I watch have made comments about this, including Redlettermedia
I don't understand:
-
What is 'AI in video monitoring?'
-
The article mentions literally nothing about this, so where did that come from?
the article provides one "official" explanation for views dropping, and i am citing an alternative explanation from the perspective of creators themselves who see the analytical data and the judgments being past on their videos.
Ok, but that’s not a TLDR of the article.
Not saying I don't believe that's what's happening, but the article mentions nothing about any sort of YouTube AI interference.
Blocking ads for decades everywhere, life is sooo goood without that cancer.
P.S. The only place were ads should appear are "yellow pages" thing, for example messenger channels just for that, where you intentionally join to look for local deals, discounts, contractors etc, especially to support local economy and not some megacorp. And ofc current google spying is not helping, block the ads, block trackers, it ruins the "steal the data" model.
frustrated by ads that feel irrelevant
What?
Do they think we have a friend-or-foe system that only shoots down advertisements from adversaries?
An ad is an ad, and should be terminated on sight.
I used to prefer personalized ads over the insanity that was 90-00s "random" ads experience. But, since ads became a risk vector, I agree the a block by default approach, and I'll find alternate ways to support sites I visit frequently rather than allowlist ads.
Something that I've been confused about ever since people have been talking about this, is that there didn't seem to be a change of views from mobile devices. Like, I know that adblockers are less common on mobile devices because most people either don't know they are available or aren't using browsers that have/support (good) adblockers. But, was there really no noticeable change at all?
There was. Some channels even saw most of their decline from mobile/TV viewers.
That doesn't necessarily mean that wasn't also related to the adblocker issue, though. How the algorithm reacted to the dramatic change in views could have made waves that saw channels de-recommended or caused it to ignore sections of a viewer's watch history and thus the recommendations shown to them as well.
With the algorithm everything gets tied together so much that any disruption can have unpredictable effects.
Do you have a reference for that? I haven't seen any channels that saw noticable decline in non desktop viewership
I’m sure that the number of times I’ve decided “nah I don’t need to see that” after being told an ad blocker violated YouTube’s terms of service has absolutely nothing to do with it either.
Even on a computer without ad blocker (work laptop, chrome browser)
the number of times i say "nah i don't need to see that" as soon as thes annoying ads comes up before the video...
The decline probably has very little to do with ad blockers.
Exactly.
If I am forced to see ads, especially intrusive or page filling ones, I will not continue.
I watched lots of YouTube in the past.
When they started inserting ads into the videos (not channel sponsored stuff), the camel started getting weak.
When they started requiring sign-ins or blocking access when using a proxy that was the straw.
I don't use YouTube anymore.
Didn't age verification - also recently implemented - cause youtube views to drop?
Here's a case of it very well explained.
It was the first thing most people assumed was the culprit, as it silently enabled Restricted Mode, but since the biggest difference came from Computer views, despite the age verification happening on all platforms, that is strong evidence against that having any impact
It's gotten to the point where I have to re-load each YT tab three times before the video ever starts playing - only because I use uBlock.
Still better than watching ads, but it is getting annoying.
For me, it works without reloading.... After a 15 second load and an insufferably laggy UI despite having no identifiable system bottleneck.
Yeah yt is basically unusable on Firefox with a blocker and it's 100% by design. Yt even gives a helpful pop-up offering to tell me why it's running so slow.
I switched from Chrome to MS Edge and don't have that YouTube ad-blocking issue with uBlock anymore. Other than that, MS Edge works exactly like Chrome.
MS Edge is Chrome, with a slight MS reskin.
I have a theory that YT deliberately makes you wait the length an ad would have been if you have uBlock Origin installed. Ive just let it "buffer" for 30 seconds or so and it will eventually load the video.
I am fine if it means I don't have to watch some scam ass ad.
I'd rather watch nothing than an ad trying to sell me something.
Still better tbh
I have no problems with ublock on Firefox or Librewolf, unless I try to skip past what the video already loaded, then it's a dice roll whether it'll work or not
It is like they know you're using adblocks, so instead of trying to force ads down your throat, they try making your experience miserable by breaking their own viewer or whatever. It is absolutely petty of them.
Leave a video sitting there in idle for too long, come back, it plays for 10 seconds then has to reload itself. Sometimes, it doesn't do this, so it requires a complete refresh.
They can do this bullshit all they want but I am not letting up on blocking ads.
I have the same problem, and after you start clicking play, often you can wait it out and the video will eventually play on its own after 10-15 seconds
load more comments
(4 replies)
caused youtube views count to drop
oh no... anyway
If you see an ad, close the tab.
Literally the only way they will learn. I really don't understand how we as a society have accepted ads as a necessary evil. We all hate them, but we all also make them work. It's horrible.
It kinda is a necessary evil, if you want free content at least. Especially for a website like youtube where you need to host millions of large videos 24/7. That shit ain't cheap, and even google can't make money out of thin air. Not that I'm defending youtube or anything, charging $8 a month for premium lite but still giving you ads is insane. Paid services should never have ads.
My problem isn't with ads, but rather the type of ads used. Like I said a moment ago, I don't think paid services should ever have ads of any kind. But for free websites, a few side banner ads are fine in my book, while ads in the middle of a page or popup ads or video ads (especially unskippable ones) are a no-go. Essentially anything that doesn't interrupt what I'm doing is usually something I'm okay with.
It’s going to take a big cultural shift to get enough people to pay content creators through subscriptions to compete with ad-driven models.
Eventually YouTube’s hubris will cross the line where enough people will just assume the ads are so bad it’s not worth trying to watch a video. As somebody with technical means and no tolerance for ads I’m astonished more people aren’t there yet.
How much do we need to pay though? Most content creators I see have their patreon around $7 CDN/mo. Add even a couple and you're now at the cost of a streaming subscription with much more content. I would have no problem paying content creators if the fees were more reasonable, but right now I only subscribe to a couple.
Should a creator's patreon drop in price to $1 or $2 a month, or should the viewer pay a small fee per view? What new monetization system would make sense where the consumer doesn't have an unaffordable pile of subscriptions, but the creators still get paid a fair rate for their effort?
That $7/myth also likely involves 30% platform fee surcharges. If there were more Peertubes and similar federated or community-owned models the fee could lower as more money goes directly to the creators.
If there was an easy solution more people would be doing it already. Just food for thought.
Nebula seems pretty cool, it's basically a bunch of YouTubers mirroring their youtube content and making original videos for a paid streaming service with no ads. That's one way of doing it
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›