• Rolando@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    some people still recommend using a VPN and IP address from a country where YouTube ads are prohibited, such as Myanmar, Albania, or Uzbekistan.

    Wait, you can just prohibit YouTube ads at a national level? That’s somehow awesome and terrifying at the same time.

      • deranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        60
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I don’t see what’s terrifying. Countries can make laws, if YouTube wants to operate in that market it has to follow the laws there.

        • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          There seems to be an abundance of the false notion that large corporations are somehow above governments on Lemmy … and that’s simply not true, at least for corporations that want have legitimate business within the country.

          EDIT: So as to say … perhaps the commenter (at least in the moment) was a bit awestruck seeing laws apply to tech (which often seems to feel as though it’s above the law in some way).

          • Halosheep@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Myanmar, as a country, has a GDP of 62.26 billion usd.

            Google has a market cap of 2.17 Trillion usd and made a profit of $305 billion usd last year.

            Google makes more money in profit than moves through Myanmar in a year by nearly 5 times. If Google chooses not to operate in their country because of some law they don’t like, what’s to stop them?

            Google definitely has national government level influence, especially considering the pervasiveness of their product suite. Implying that they’re above the law might be too far, but they for sure influence it.

            If the most extreme happens and Google decided that some EU law was too much to deal with compared to the gains, a lot of Europeans could find themselves in a position where Google doesn’t operate in their country. Imagine every Android device becoming unable to use the majority of the service they operate on, or the most common browser, search engine, email service, and video streaming services simultaneously being disabled. I can’t imagine the people will be very happy about that.

          • edric@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            It kinda depends where. GDPR in the EU is certainly an example of governments imposing their will on corporations. In the US, not so much, as corporations dump tons of money on lobbying that allow to them influence how they are regulated.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s somehow awesome and terrifying at the same time.

      The people of this country would find it just the normal thing.

    • Confused_Emus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Are these countries even safe to host a VPN server in?

      Edit: Just checked my VPN (Proton) and it has options to connect to Myanmar and Albania. Nifty.

  • ours@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    This must cost YouTube a fortune doing additional processing and reduced flexibility. They are going to hurt themselves and blockers will find a way.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      There’s already extensions that somehow skip sponsorship sections, so it won’t even take that long.

      • daddy32@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        85
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s “crowdsourced”, i.e. manually done by volunteers on per-video basis.

      • Björn Tantau@swg-empire.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s actually hurt by this because it uses timestamps supplied by users to work. But now they are off because the ads are of variable length. We can just hope that YouTube keeps the ability to link to a specific timestamp because then it has to calculate the difference and that can be used by Sponsorblock and adblockers alike.

        • Veticia@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          But then those ads either need to be skippable or not skippable with some kind of metadata which can be used against it by injected scripts.

      • Thorry84@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        The problem is those blocking extensions are based on timestamps. Those timestamps are added by the users, it’s a crowdsourced thing. But the ads a single user will see differ from what another user will see. It’s likely the length of the ads is different, which makes the whole timestamp thing a no go.

        Along with the timestamp, there needs to be a way to detect where the actual video begins. That way at least an offset can be applied and timestamps maintained, but it would introduce a certain level of error.

        The next issue would be to then advance the video to the place where the actual video begins. This can be very hard, as it would need to include some way of recognizing the right frame in the buffer. One requirement is that the starting frame is actually in the buffer (with ads more than a few seconds, this isn’t guaranteed). The add-on has access to this buffer (depending on the platform, this isn’t guaranteed). And there’s a reliable way to recognize the right frame, given the different encoding en quality setups.

        And this needs to be done cheap, so with as little as infrastructure as possible. A database of timestamps is very small and crowdsourcing those timestamps is relatively easy. But recognizing frames requires more data to be stored and crowdsourcing the right frame is a lot harder than a timestamp. If the infrastructure ends up being complex and big, someone needs to pay for that. I don’t know if donations alone would cut it. So you would need to play ads, which is exactly what you intend on not doing.

        I’m sure the very smart and creative people working on these things will find a way. But it won’t be easy, so I don’t expect a solution very soon.

    • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not really. They can precompute those and inject it in an MP4 file so long as the settings match and it’s inserted right before an i-frame so that it doesn’t corrupt b-frames. They already reencode everything with their preferred settings, so they only need to encode the ads for those same settings they already do. Just needs to be spliced seamlessly.

      But YouTube uses DASH anyway, it’s like HLS, the stream is served in individual small chunks so it’s even easier because they just need to add chunks of ads where they can add mismatched video formats, for the same reason it’s able to seamlessly adjust the quality without any audio glitches.

      Ad blockers will find a way.

      • ours@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Re-encoding is one thing, but ads are more or less supposed to be dynamic based on user location and likely some other data to target them.

        Offloading that to the client made a lot of sense but now they have to do this server-side, they have very smart people working on making this as efficient as possible using tricks you’ve mentioned and more but it is still more effort than before. All for something that will likely be circumvented eventually.

        • 4am@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          All of that targeting data lives on Google’s servers already. Your computer isn’t trying to figure out who you are and what you like each ad play, Google already knows who you are when your browser makes a request for a video. Everything you are talking about is already server-side.

          • ours@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The data is but the client gets the specific bits from a CDN. Now they need a server to stitch these server side and stream it to you.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Every bit of effort and resourcing they spend on this returns revenue directly. Which is more than they can probably say for a lot of things they do. And they’re smart enough to know that they can’t eliminate blocking, just make it harder and harder so that fewer and fewer people do it.

  • gressen@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    YouTube’s next move might make it virtually impossible to watch YouTube

  • Rinox@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    How it works is that once you start getting these Server Side Ads (SSA), Youtube will create a sort of queue of videos in place of your usual video, with the first few being ads that can’t be skipped and have a red bar (not yellow) and in the end you’ll get your video. They are not literally part of the original video stream, they are separate streams that get injected as if they were the original video. It’s called SSAP, and I’ve been experiencing it from the last weekend. In the meantime, they’ve pretty much broken their player to implement this.

    Ublock Origin has released a temporary fix yesterday here

    Alternatively, you can use this extension to redirect from YouTube videos to piped.video I used it, it works very well, can’t guarantee for much more.

    edit: fixed wording

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    6 months ago

    People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.

    You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.

    Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.

    You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.

    – Banksy

  • Emerald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    6 months ago

    Worse case scenario, we gotta make an extension that detects the ad UI and blanks the screen and mutes the audio until its over

    • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Why not use that screen time to promote alternative to YouTube?. Or even a simple Fuck google screen : " insert why google sucks here".

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        What if we replaced their ads with our ads? What do you mean that defeats the purpose?

        • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Not if it brings people to a user controlled FLOSS platform (Peertube for example ) and make them ditch Youtube. We need to move the viewers and content to FLOSS alternatives so anything that will bring new users is good. Youtube will be the biggest battle IMO. Plus it would be kind of fun to trash Youtube on their own platform. Let’s settle for an optional functionality.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Let me simplify this for you: If I’m getting an addon to stop seeing ads, I’m not going to choose an addon that replaces them with other ads. I will choose the addon that doesn’t give me ads.

            The only people who would even consider such an addon are not the target audience for the ads because they already support it.

            • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              What if I offer you an add-on that would promote healthy life-habits instead of black screen? Would you be interested in that? For example, it’s important to squeeze the sponge after using it, this would be super useful to remind you about it!That’s just an example, there are dozens of small tips like that requires a daily reminder.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                What if I offer you an add-on that would promote healthy life-habits instead of black screen? Would you be interested in that?

                No. I want to watch the thing I specifically decided to watch, and not what someone else wants to advertise to me.

                • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Ok hear me out: an add-on that promotes “Watching less youtube!!!”. Isn’t that genius? It could be 50/50. 15 seconds of blackscreen for people like you who enjoy starring at it, and 15 seconds of “less screen time” promotion. That way you are frequently reminded that you could do better things with your time. Example : “You have starred at a black screen for XX minutes today. Did you know that a basic ukulele cost around 30$ and you can learn playing by investing as low as 30 minutes per day?” On top of it, I will ad a functionality that let you customize the color of the blackscreen! What do you think, are we getting somewhere or what?

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    6 months ago

    And once everybody is watching ads and nobody is skipping them, YouTube will start making the commercials shorter and less invasive, right Anakin?

  • dalë@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I accidentally watched YouTube the other night without adblock, OMFG what an experience.

    If I can’t watch with adblock I’ll just stop using it, it’s only a rabit hole to waste time for me anyway.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yup, and I’m not willing to pay for Youtube Premium because the app kinda sucks and I don’t like Google keeping track of what I watch. I’m willing to pay, but I’d really like to keep using the 3rd party apps I prefer (Grayjay and NewPipe).

      So like Reddit, I’ll drop Youtube if my 3rd party apps stop working. That’s my line in the sand. If Youtube wants to get money from me, it needs to be through an API disassociated from my identity.

  • polle@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Doubt. Never underestimate the hate and motivation against ads.

  • cRazi_man@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good. This is how YouTube dies. This is how Google dies. This is how competitors/alternatives are born. Stop fighting to make Google services useable against every effort of theirs. Let them drive people away to make (or discover) alternatives.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Do you have any idea how many billions with a B it would take to even start a viable, proper competitor to youtube? and how quickly that capital B could end up becoming a Capital T?

      I hate people who keep screaming about let youtube die and alternatives will be born.

      Youtube has been shit for years. No ones made an alternative that is viable.

      Any an all alternatives are subscription based services, and tiny. Like Floatplane, Utreon and whatever the gunfocused one is that I cant remember off the top of my head, if it even still exists.

      Anyone that has that kinda money are probably already in bed with googles capitalistic hellscape ideals for hte internet and not interested in going against them.

      Creating competitors for things like Reddit and Facebook are relatively easy. Creating a competitor for something that probably accumulates hundreds of terabytes, if not more, per hour? That takes insane amounts of storage, and bandwidth, and overhead, and everything else that costs more than any regular person could ever have a hope of even having a wet dream over.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        If you tried to create a centralized one? Yeah, it would take a lot. Would a decentralized one be as expensive? I’m not sure.

        I think the best goal would be to try to create a platform for creators that has a low barrier to entry - both in terms of cost and skill - that gives them the ability to easily and quickly set up a “channel” to “broadcast” from and earn some revenue somehow.

        Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Why build one competitor to YouTube when we could build a billion of them?

          Because thats the very reason why people hate current streaming services, and you’re arguing to not only make it worse than that, but to make the end users eat the costs of storage and bandwidth.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            You don’t understand why people hate streaming fragmentation.

            You can have a billion decentralized openyoutube all on the same page, just look how lemmy already does it.

            Podcast also did it with RSS. Agglomeration isn’t an issue on a decentralized open platform

          • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            If they shared the same protocol, or at least reasonably compatible versions of it, you could have one app that does all of them.

            • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              6 months ago

              The protocol isn’t the hard part. It’s the monetizing that is. Creators aren’t looking to provide content for free, especially if they are also now paying for hosting costs.

              Ad spots (like Google does) work well because they can inject an up to date ad into an old video. In something like the fedeverse today a creators only option would be ads baked into the video, but they would only get paid for that up front which isn’t ideal…

              • alsimoneau@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Sponsors pay much more than views. So does patrons.

                The true issue is discoverability in my opinion.

                • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Sponsors pay more upfront. If creators are only using sponsors than their whole back catalogue is basically valueless. If it costs a creator 2-10 cents a month to host a video (based off S3 pricing), but they only made 1000$ on it upfront when the video was made, overtime the back catalogue becomes a pretty significant financial burden if it’s not being monetized

                  Also it’s worth keeping in mind that many people are also using tools to autoskip sponsor spots, and the only leverage creators have for being paid by sponsors are viewership numbers.

                  Patreon is irrelevant, that’s just like Nebula, floatplane etc, it’s essentially a subscription based alternative to YouTube.

                  Discoverability is pointless if the people discovering you aren’t going to financial contribute. It’s the age old “why don’t you work for me for free, the exposure I provide will make it worth your time”, that hasn’t been true before and likely isn’t here. Creators aren’t looking to work for free (at least not the ones creating the high quality content we’re used to today)

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yet bittorrent does youtube fives times over with central governance. You have drunk too much cloud coolaid. My laptop could host my youtube channel without issue and I would still have enough juice to play counter strike and download the latest marvel slop movie.

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Boy howdy, users sure would love to pivot to a peer distributed content system that randomly downloads chunks of a video file as they become available with speeds of anywhere between 2 bytes and 2 megabytes a second (which one you’ll get depends on who you’re getting the chunks from) with literally no guarantee of being able to even complete said download because the people they’re downloading it from may not all have the entire file’s worth of combined data across their respective computers, and they have to download the entire video before watching it to determine whether or not they even want to watch it in the first place. Also, there’s no capacity for monetization without literally doing what Google is trying to do and injecting advertisements directly into the video, so there’s no incentive for any content producers to use this system to distribute said content, meaning it would be a ghost town of a service from the start.

          Yep, that would be a great system. /s

          • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            Exactly.

            I’m feeling like this whole “distrubuted youtube!” argument is nothing but a variant of the blockchain fantasy. Seeing a lot of the same style of arguments and ignorance.

            • Balder@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              It’s a common trap for certain types of people to assume technology can fix problems that are inventive or socially driven.

              • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Its also a common trap for idiots to grasp hold of a fraction of a fragment of an idea and think it gives them complete and total understanding, and then go around proselytizing their absolute incompetence as if its techno-gospel.

                Which I think is why this distributed youtube bull follows the same general argument trend as the mythical and holy blockchain. That does nothing, but somehow can magically solve all problems.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                We solved this problem BEFORE youtube was even a thing. Youtube only exists out of convenience for normies. Youtube can die tomorrow, we will still have unlimited video. In fact, think youtube slowed down innovation on this front. Torrent trackers are unchanged in their form from 2003. I wouldn’t mind federated content, browser integration of torrent systems and locally running content recommendation system as well as social crowdsourced review systems (aka the like button and comments)

          • kalleboo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            To be fair, a LOT of people swear by Popcorn Time, which is exactly that. I was surprised it worked as well as it does, too.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            If the file is that poorly seeded, and therefore extremely sparsely watched, then the laptop with a broken screen in my closet can serve it to anyone who wants it.

            The only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand / broad appeal media and in that case, what you describe WON’T happen.

            For low demand media, https off my mom’s coffemaker will do just fine.

            That means anyone posting 100-200 video to youtube today, can easily handle all these situation with less expense than the price of whatever camera they filmed the content with to begin with.

            Youtube only exists, because us, old internet fucks, got lazy and relied on google for mail and video.

            We could EASILY EASILY EASILY done it ourselves.

            • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              A service people want to use is typically one with redundancy and high availability. Your laptop could overheat, have a drive failure, spontaneously lose its wifi connection, or a million other things. It’s fundamentally unreliable.

              only reason we need a scalable system, is to handle high demand

              Scalability isn’t just about distribution. It’s about reliability and convenience - two things your system as described lacks by design. A video file that no one but you has ever seen has the same exact degree of accessibility as one served to millions.

              We could EASILY EASILY EASILY done it ourselves.

              This is the copium talking. If it had been easy to do and monetizable, it would have already been done. That’s the other part of the problem here. There is no incentive for anyone to use this system to consume or distribute content other than to decouple from Google. Opposition to an existing service is not enough of a motivator for people to use a system. It has to provide some comparative benefit that outweighs the cost incurred by continuing to use the other service. The big thing that Youtube has is, obviously, content. Exabytes of it. Your new service would have…nothing. We have left the age of services starting up and gaining massive movements of people behind them. We are now in an age of the internet in which the inertia of existing services will carry them decades into the future. Youtube is now too big to fail, and too big to be replaced.

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                We are in the age of the toy internet, it is all about to crumple like a house of card bought on cheap credit and unviable business models. Youtube is not long for this world and nobody will miss it. The only question is how much of it Archive Team can save before if goes up in flames. Well, the good parts of it, that’s easy but can we save the garbage too, I’m not sure. Take any channel on youtube and its creator can easily serve it’s entire catalog out of a obsolete chromebox with two usb sticks on the side. Even as small as a terabyte would still be mostly empty space. Youtube was built defective by design using 1970s ideology, it is immensely wasteful.

                • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  I want to see how you can serve thousands or millions of people with a Chromebook in your closet. And if you say p2p, that doesn’t deal with spikes in demand and a lot of old content will just vanish even easier than on YouTube. Also it would rely on people being willing to seed.

              • Emerald@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Blockbuster is now too big to fail, and too big to be replaced.

                • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Blockbuster died because its business model was rendered obsolete by virtue of widespread adoption of the internet and the advent of streaming. And because it refused to shift its business model away from physical media distribution to digital. Let me know when they invent something that makes the internet obsolete, will you? Because that is what it will take to dethrone YouTube.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Your laptop would become suicidal the second it had to start serving streaming, 4k video to dozens of people, much less hundreds or thousands.

          • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            My laptop can copy files at 15 mbps, very very easily. Hundreds ? Again piss easy, that’s what bittorrents are for, even easier when the swarms takes care of all the traffic. The more people are 10 or so and the faster it will copy itself. Do you cloud people still know how to copy files or was that arcane knowledge lost to the sands of 1995 ?

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I hate the cloud you perfidious incompetent. The only thing more stupid than the “cloud” is your belief that you can serve hundreds, if not thousands, of simultaneous streams,possibly 1080, most likely 4k, from your 15mbps laptop.

            • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              You must not want a youtube competitor then, if your goal is to just okay-ly stream to just a couple dozen or so people.

                • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  You are correct. Nearly all youtube channels can be fully served off a single laptop. 260 concurrent streams at 1080p 3mbps is achievable over gigabit ethernet. Very few channels exceed this for any appreciable amount of time. And in those cases we can leverage a very small amount of the client’s ressources to further propagate the stream. This can be done with repurposed bittorrent dht. Now all we need is federated RSS and a locally running content curation algorithm and a social review system (like buttons and reputation history)

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      It has been THE viteo platform for literally decades. There is so much content there; it would be a tremendous effort to direct that elsewhere.

      And that other site would quickly succumb to storage and bandwidth costs. What options could exist?

    • joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      6 months ago

      I fail to follow how a competitor can pop up if the main users it’s attracting are ones that don’t want to view ads or pay for subscriptions.

    • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The alternative should be libraries hosting the peoples internet.

      You may balk at the idea, much like you would have at the idea of free public libraries when originally conceived.

      • eodur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        I like this idea so much. Do the public libraries not have some kind of video service already? Seems like a network of library-powered PeerTube instances would serve that niche really well.

    • BruceTwarzen@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I like youtube, i use it quite a lot. I wouldn’t use it at all without ad and sponsor block. I don’t know how so many people do it, it’s crazy to me.

  • my_hat_stinks@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    6 months ago

    My gut reaction is that this won’t work long-term. Users on youtube often point to specific timestamps in a video in comments or link to specific timestamps when sharing videos, meaning there needs to be some way to identify the timestamp excluding ads. And if there’s a way to do that there’s a way to detect ads.

    Of course, there’s always the chance they just scrap these features despite how useful they are and how commonly they’re used; they’ve done similar before.

    • Lemminary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Feedback across the Firefox and YouTube subreddits highlighted that it could break timestamped video links and chapter markers. However, YouTube knows the length of the ads it would inject, and can offset subsequent timestamps suitably.

      The move also adds a layer of unnecessary complexity in saving Premium viewers from these ads. If they are added server-side, the YouTube client would have to auto-skip them for Premium members, but that also means ad segment info will be relayed to the client, opening up a window of opportunity for ad blockers to use the same information meant for Premium subscribers and skip injected ads automatically.

      It sounds like there’s a silver lining after all.

    • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      YT already scrapped (or broke) setting the start/end timestamps for embedded videos. That hasn’t worked for at least the last few weeks. Embed videos now always start at 0

    • steersman2484@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m prette sure they have to send the metadata to the client where an ad starts and ends. Just to make the ad clickable.

      Timestamps can be calculated on the server, but maybe there will be an api endpoint that can be abused to search for the ads.

      • Einar@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I really wish this would gain some traction. As it is, there is just not enough content there to compete with YouTube in any reasonable way.

        • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well the problem here is that youtubers need some type of monetization too for compensation. Idk Peertube can solve this without ads.

          • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Paid subscriptions per month, you watch the newest video for free. Have the youtuber host the server themselves for their own videos and federate that access.

            Would incentivize more evergreen content too.

  • MrSoup@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I don’t see any technical specification in the article, but if they inject the ad at the start of the video, making it part of the video itself, would make possible to just skip it using video controls. To avoid user skippin ad thru video controls there should be client-side script blocking it, so an ad-blocker can use this to tell apart an ad from the video itself.

    Can anyone correct me on this?

    Also, would this affect piped and invidious too?