Lemme try and feel sorry for my cartoonishly rich tech overlords real quick.........
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2025
360 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
75489 readers
2548 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
YouTube is completely broken on my Apple TV — the last platform I have which actually does display ads. When the app loads, I get a black screen. When I tap on a video (click on it? on the remote?) it goes black, stutters through an ad, stutters through the next one, then stutters through the video for a couple seconds. Sometimes I have to start the video over. If I were running an ad blocker, I would expect static like this... but I'm not. I don't have a PiHole. The Apple TV has direct, unfiltered access to my WiFi. The ads are showing, but the app is just... broken. On my computers (Macs) I get a perfect experience, because I use Firefox with uBlock Origin like a sane person who knows what they're doing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
For those curious what “adblockers said really happened”:
[AdGuard] suggested that the issue may have been linked to popular community-maintained filter lists like EasyList and uBlock’s Quick Fixes.
A new filter rule added to EasyList on August 11, 2025 targeted telemetry requests thought to be tied to YouTube’s view attribution and analytics.
That rule remained in place until September 10, when it was temporarily disabled.
A similar change was added to uBlock’s Quick Fixes on September 10 and removed on September 17.
OK. I mean Fuck Alphabet anyhow, but this means a youtuber who relies on view counts for monetary income (I guess) would actually have reason to worry about adblockers?
Again, I'm not saying I'm against adblockers or even this particular feature. And I very well see what Google is doing here, trying to get their creators up in arms against adblocking. I just want to know if this is debunkable or if youtubers would have a genuine argument here.
I did not really understand above explanation. I guess I need it ELI5.
I kept up with the drama until about a week ago so what I'm saying here is the status from back then. Someone please add any new context if I'm missing any new developments:
From what it appeared, view counts dropped but ad revenue stayed the same. Even before this whole thing, YouTube pays out for ads watched (and clicked). Pay out was not dependent on raw view count for a long time, if ever.
This suspicious behavior of view count dropping but ad revenue staying the same is actually what tipped people off that the issue was adblock related. The fact that channels with a larger focus on a younger audience seeing less of a drop also helped.
Now those view counts dropping could still have an indirect, negative effect on ad revenue, if it, e.g. automatically leads to YouTube recommending their videos less prominently.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It wouldn't matter whether it was intentional or not. Put simply, Google can continue indirectly punishing creators for tolerating adblockers then redirect blame, even though they could have easily separated the metrics from the advertising and telemetry endpoints that blockers filtered. This way they get their money either from unblocked ads or from creator's reduced view counts, win-win for Google.
As an added bonus for Google, by ensuring view metrics get fucked up, it double punishes creators featuring sponsored content that rely on those metrics to determine how much the sponsor should pay them. Meanwhile Google could, in theory, sell ad placements attached to their own internal metrics that differ from the affected ones publicly visible.
So you're saying Google packaged the viewcount that's relevant to monetization into a 3rd party js data request instead of just counting the actual video's views, and so manages to play content creators against privacy-conscious users?
Worthy of a Roman Emperor, that.
See that's the fun part. Google is the ad company so it's all 1st party data. Google can package the Trojan horse however they please, which why it's such a fine line for the blockers to walk.
I have a few YouTubers I like to support with views of all of their content. Because I want them to get the support, I watch their content on YouTube with no ad blockers.
Louis Rossmann says if you donate 1 dollar direct to the YouTuber you give them more support than a couple of years of watching ads. Keep using a adblocker and buy some merch for support.
I have bought merch, but not everyone has merch for sale. Also I don't have much extra cash, and they definitely get money from views too, it's why I advocate other people giving them views also. Also, one of the biggest income drivers for them are sponsorships, and you have to have high view counts to attract sponsors.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The number of ads I had popping up while trying to read that article isn't discouraging me from using adblockers.
This is actually one of my favorite websites to browse on desktop through my VPN and extreme DNS blocking solution. The console just fills with blocked content and JavaScript errors, it really warms my heart.
For reference, here are the exceptions I've been using to try to make sure my viewership counts. Not sure if they're all needed and they're probably overkill, but:
@@||youtube.com/api$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||youtube.com/youtubei$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||youtube.com/ptracking$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||play.google.com/log$domain=youtube.com|google.com
! these are meant for checking for active internet connection (https://www.techtapto.com/what-is-gstatic-why-you-see-it-often/#Is_Gstatic_com_generate_204_a_virus)
@@||youtube.com/generate_204$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||google.com/generate_204$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||youtube.com/gen_204$domain=youtube.com|google.com
@@||google.com/gen_204$domain=youtube.com|google.com
I assume the recent forced JS which recently broke downloaders and alt front-ends is connected to this somehow.
Well, I for one stopped seeing YouTube videos ever since they started requiring me to Sign On because I'm using an AdBlocker and am behind a VPN.
If for some reason it's actually required that I watch it, I'll disconnect from the VPN and watch it, if not, I just move on.
In the last 6 months or so I have disconnected my VPN to watch a YouTube video maybe once, whilst I just moved on maybe hundred times or so (less and less as I increasingly I won't even click on links for YouTube).
Why do you need to login? I've been using YT w/o being logged in for a couple years now, and it's 100% fine. I can't watch some of the age-restricted videos, but those are so rare that I don't even remember the last time I've been prevented from seeing a video.
load more comments
(3 replies)
(shrug) don't care if it affects views, never should have had them in videos regardless.
The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn't get money from you just watching the video.
i really don’t care
rather do without than with ads
Paying to access content makes a lot more sense that hoping someone willingly watches an advert on their own hardware.
An indirect, alternate could be universal basic income - which makes it easier for people to choose less profitable options.
Just so we're clear, you're proposing UBI as a solution to a global website showing ads
To authors of works getting compensated for sharing their efforts. So here it's a video content on a website, but also any other works on any other protocol.
Right. Turns out UBI is a solution to a lot of things.
Are you aware that more than one country exists?
A lot of people either don't want to pay, or can't pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we're a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.
Those people who can't pay aren't really worth anything to advertise to, though.
If it were sensibly prized I would have no issue with paying for YouTube. But seeing as they almost ask for the same as Netflix and co while not producing any content, I decided for the adblocker instead
They do not produce content, but they share 70% of revenue with the creators. You can argue that's not enough, but it's definitely more than Netflix et al pay their content creators.
Creators are paid based on those views, so that would matter.
I personally wouldn't care that much if youtube went back to how it was back in the day of people sharing for the sake of sharing instead of it being filled with bunch of aspiring infomercial hosts trying to get the bag.
Have to block so many channels because they monopolize the top search results before I see videos from normal folks just uploading to upload because they thought a video would be helpful.
@kokesh@lemmy.world @Zen_Shinobi@lemmy.world
Creators are paid based on those views if they're willing to be dependent on them.
There are many, many ways for a content creator to be supported (and a viewer/follower to support them) without relying on Google: Kofi, OpenCollective, even Patreon, to name a few. And there are platforms specifically paid by the viewer, such as Nebula.
It's worth mentioning: donation is a thing and many do donation-based projects. It can be even a direct bank transfer from a viewer to the bank account of the content creator. I say this as someone who did support content creators and donated to them. In the past, I used to pay for membership for two specific Youtube channels, back when I still used to use Youtube. When I stopped using Youtube, I went from YT membership to direct, bank transfer to both creators behind these channels. I wished they would choose to use some private PeerTube instance/channel (it's a thing) or even Nebula, but they stubbornly chose to stick to Google's walled garden, unfortunately leaving me with no choice but to stop watching them both.
Had what in videos?
Ads
*Goolag shooting itself on foot be like.
The dev community is just adapting to shit thrown.