• iAmTheTot
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    YT premium is a good value for me and my family. Guess I’m evil.

    • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Same. I watch more YouTube than probably any other streaming service. Plus I got the family plan and I sell the extra seats to my extended family and friends. Works out to be pretty cheap in the end.

      I do the same for Spotify, Disney plus. Formally Netflix but they cut down on password sharing

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        If you have YouTube premium, why do you have Spotify? YouTube music is comparable and better in some cases.

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

          I don’t pay for either but I use both and the youtube music desktop ui is really really bad. Plus the annoying thing of it often playing music videos instead of the normal song. I definitely like it better on mobile though

          • iAmTheTot
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            You can toggle video or song. I actually like yt music way more because it can play pretty much anything on YT, including hours and hours of mixes you won’t find on Spotify.

            • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              You can’t really toggle video or song though, you can toggle video or thumbnail to video with video audio

              • iAmTheTot
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                2 months ago

                I’ve had a different experience. When I have it on video, it’ll play the music video version, and when I have it on song, it’ll play the studio version. Maybe that doesn’t work for every song, but it definitely has worked that way for me.

        • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Honestly it’s the social aspect. Everyone I know uses Spotify, so sharing playlists and tracks are super easy. I know there’s converters out there but I can’t be arsed to do that every time I want to send or receive a link. I’ve also got some shared playlists between friends we all contribute to. At social gathering I can turn on the party mode or whatever it’s called and let people add stuff to the queue. The big one though is I’ve got a few friends with really good taste. I can check in on them from time to time to see what they’re listening to right now. Found a lot of great stuff this way.

        • Matriks404@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It definitely is better, but it sill has some stupid quirks that in some cases could probably be fixed by few lines of code, like not locking the screen when you are on the lyrics screen. It also is very slow to start-up in offline mode, which drives me nuts. But otherwise it is much better performant than Spotify and has better ways to listen to new music, instead of the dumb intelligent randomize feature on Spotify.

    • Ohmmy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I wish I could be as pleased with it. I don’t want to pay for a service and have that service still collect data on me to push ads elsewhere.

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unfortunately that’s everything. Netflix, buying groceries with a credit card, even driving your new car.

        • Rolando@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          It doesn’t have to be this way. Somewhere in the past something went wrong.

          • Zexks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            No. Nothing went wrong. Just nobody cares how anything works just so long as it does.

      • iAmTheTot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Mate, you can’t use basically anything today then. Your car probably collects data on you. I’m not saying I love it, but life’s too short for me to cut everything trying to collect my data out of my life. Gotta pick and choose my battles.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you block ads everywhere else then it doesn’t really matter. Pi.hole, AdGuard, proton vpn, Firefox will all block ads for you on pretty much every other site on the planet.

    • mub@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      My 3 kids all use iPhone and we have a bunch of chrome casts. The only practical way to avoid the ads in YTP.

      • iAmTheTot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t mind paying for good services, personally.

      • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Yeah until it gets shot by A/B testing again lol. I love newpipe, but for somebody with a family it’s hard to justify, especially bc the non-techies of the fam are gonna want something that ‘just works’.

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      get a good adblocker and donate that money to them instead.

      thatd probably be the best value.

      • iAmTheTot
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I do use an adblocker, and I’ll keep spending my money how I please, thanks.

          • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            paying for youtubers

            Like it or not the platform is full of people trying to make a living independently producing content. Most of them are not making very much money. Watching with an adblocker means they aren’t earning any revenue, which is unsustainable. Watching with a Premium subscription means I don’t see ads and they get more revenue (even more so than ad-supported views).

            Those people aren’t massive corporations. They’re independent creators. And generally speaking the content I watch on YouTube is content I want to support.

            I’m not trying to say it’s like, inherently ethically wrong to watch YouTube without ads or Premium. But it certainly isn’t ethically superior.

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      “Absolute evil” is a bit of a stretch, but it’s YouTube/Google’s fault (by closing off and centralizing their video platform) that it is impossible to go elsewhere for videos.

      • riodoro1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Google just made it really hard for creators to go anywhere else and created a monopoly of sorts.

        Literally every corporation does or attempts to do the same thing. What we would need is to revive the politicians that broke up rockefellers empire and tell them to do the same with apple, microsoft, google, meta, amazon and every tech „giant”.

        No more providing every imaginable service under one company.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Literally every corporation does or attempts to do the same thing.

          Exactly. Every single corporation is evil and should be dismantled 🔥🔥🔥. This is just one of a thousand reasons to do so.

        • gndagreborn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          I agree that YouTube is Google monopoly, but I I’ve been wondering… They handle massive amounts of data. Would any other non-trillion dollar company be even capable of storing, processing, and presenting videos on the same scale, with the same quality, and with what is arguably very good latency world wide?

          What could competitors do to beat Google without hemorrhaging their money just trying the manage the overhead?

          • RmDebArc_5
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            If they use the same monetization no probably not, other platforms that do work like that (like Odysee) have some limits, for example Odysee doesn’t transcode the videos and has a limit of 16mbits and 15gb total. It may be possible for platforms like Vimeo or Nebula as they have a relatively high subscriber count compared to their size and accordingly more money available per person, or something like peertube (or general torrent based) could work if the workload is split between instances and users, but peertube has no monetization so it’s problematic to maintain

              • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.

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

                  My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.

                  People are free to do this. It turns out hosting video content is expensive. Most YouTubers aren’t exactly rolling in cash. The ones everyone knows, sure, they’re making a living from it now. But that also wouldn’t have been possible for most of them starting out.

                  Like it or not, YouTube provides something important to the internet: a place for content creators to get started with comparatively little upfront cost.

      • tyler@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t really understand how that’s YouTube’s fault. They created a good product so people used it and there were no alternatives when it got shit. There’s no lock in. They don’t force you off the platform if you post elsewhere (like twitch did). You can literally post the same video to as many platforms as you want. Sites like Instagram and GitHub have more lock in than YouTube does.

        • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          They created a good product so people used it and there were no alternatives when it got shit.

          They created an inherently centralizing implementation of a video sharing platform. Even if it was done with good intentions (which it wasn’t, it was some capitalist’s hustle, and its social importance is a side effect), we should basically always condemn centralizing implementations of a given technology because they reinforce existing power structures regardless of the intentions of their creators.

          It’s their fault because they’re a corporation that does what corporations do. Even when corporations try to do right by the world (which is an extremely generous appraisal of YouTube’s existence), they still manage to create centralizing technologies that ultimately serve to reinforce their existing power, because that’s all they can do. Otherwise, they would have set themselves up as a non-profit or some other type of organization. I refuse to accept the notion of a good corporation.

          There’s no lock in. They don’t force you off the platform if you post elsewhere (like twitch did).

          That’s a good point, but while there isn’t a de jure lock-in for creators, there is a de facto lock-in that prevents them from migrating elsewhere. Namely, that YouTube is a centralized, proprietary service, which can’t be accessed from other services.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean this is every ecosystem though right? YouTube, Apple, Steam, everyone tries their best to do it because they want you locked in.

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Don’t be disingenuous. We are already paying for that service, in our data and attention.

      It would be an entirely different story if paying for Youtube Premium immediately opted you out of participating in Google’s data-mining and data-selling, and if paying for Youtube Premium removed not just the overt ads but the algorithmically-manipulated advertising content as well (what is the effective difference between a Pepsi ad and a Good Mythical Morning video titled “trying every new Pepsi flavor”?), but it since it DOESN’T do those then we aren’t talking about paying for a service - we are talking about a company asking for every penny in our wallet for a service which we are already paying for.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    🙄

    If paying for a service you use is the worst thing you can imagine, you really need to read the news at least once a decade.

  • Tja@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Another happy customer of YouTube premium here. I canceled Netflix, never had Spotify. The only subscription I pay, worth it. The family plan works to 5 or 6 euros per person per month.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Remember when the big selling point of cable TV was no advertising? And then it became 99% ads?

    Yeah.

    • sip@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      ummm I was born ~90 and I’ve always seen commercials. don’t take it the wrong way, but when were you born???

      • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Before the 90s. I think the best time for cable TV was between 1982 and 88. MTV wasn’t crap. The History Channel had actual history shows and the Discovery Channel always had top notch science shows. We also had “Night Flight” on “USA’s Up All Night.” They would run back to back episodes, starting at 9pm on Saturday nights and ending around 4-5am Sunday.

        Anyone who remembers 80s cable TV should feel incredibly ripped off by what they’re showing today.

        • JIMMERZ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I remember these days. Cable felt really special. Then the ads, and every channel became reality TV and less about what the channels original purpose was. TLC is all trash TV, History is all ancient aliens and conspiracy theories now. YouTube sorta has brought that back, but for me the premium subscription is too expensive. I have a subscription to Nebula where a lot of YT creators have channels and it costs far more reasonable.

        • BowtiesAreCool@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          So, you’re actually viewing the past with rose tinted glasses here. There was never a time when basic cable was completely ad free. There was certain channels that started ad free, and some like HBO only ever showed ads for their own content, but there was always ads. TV now is very different and arguably worse, but not for that reason.

  • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Of all the current media subscription services, this is the one I have no issue paying for. The service I get for the money I pay is appropriate. I’ve taken my own measures to limit the amount of PII that Google can vacuum up from my life as well. I’m fine with them knowing what I like to watch and providing algorithmic recommendations for new content. I police said algorithm aggressively to ensure its always on topic and never trying to show me ragebait or shit I don’t want to see.

    When the day comes that the cost outweighs the return I’ll stop paying for it and use Grayjay or Newpipe or whatever other option there is. If its a full on dystopia by then, well y’know what? I don’t need Youtube to survive. I’ll be fine without it.

  • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    3 months ago

    Do I hate giving money to Google? Yes. Do I watch 6+ hours of Youtube a day? Also yes. I almost always have something playing in the background throughout my day, so it’s the one service I’m ok paying for and I don’t have to worry about it breaking like I would with other frontends.

    • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, but it’s not Youtube making the content I guess is my problem. Everyone is mostly here because of all the Reddit crap, doing the EXACT same thing google did to videos with youtube. No one here is completely fine with a "Reddit Premium Account!"tm I patron a few creators so I help with what I can, I will not join the youtube “member” additional fee. I also have been trying to branch out to creators that upload to multiple sites, it can be a little bit of a pain like figuring out Lemmy and how everything works but obviously it’s better than sticking with a company gouging and controlling content on their platform for profit.

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        The channels you‘re watching get a noticeable chunk out of your YT Premium subscription though. I‘ve heard multiple YT creators say, that they get a lot more money from a premium view than an ad supported one (and nothing when you use adblock). And I definitely watch too many different creators to support each and every one individually on patreon/nebula/floatplane/whatever.

      • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Patreon takes a cut of your money and gives the rest to the creator. Youtube does the same thing with Premium, plus creators receive a higher rpm from Premium viewers than they do from ads. And people left Reddit because they stopped supporting 3rd party apps. Youtube never supported 3rd party apps, plus there’s no suitable alternative to leave Youtube for.

        Also, I’m not completely fine with Youtube Premium, but the pros outweigh the cons enough for me to justify paying for it.

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

          From my research, Patreon takes a smaller cut than YouTube Premium. Comparing YouTube Premium to its own ad model is a “Worst Negates the Bad” fallacy. From what I gathered (not easy to find and has changed over time) YT takes 30% from the former and 45% from latter. Seems insanely high. More than taxes. May be why so many creators need sponsors and hawk merch.

          YouTube never supporting 3rd party apps seems like a negative.

          Lots of suitable alternatives to youtube: read a book, listen to music, go for a walk, hang with friends, play games, etc, but to your point, sounds like a monopoly. Their search was once great, then ubiquitous, now terrible. YouTube Premium is just in the “entice users and creators” phase of its inevitable enshittification.

          Don’t mean to dump on something you like, just disagree with the reasoning. If you’re not fine with Premium and hate giving money to google, sounds like you’ll eventually seek out alternatives when they go into profit maximization mode. Hopefully enough resources will have been invested in viable alternatives by that time.

          [edit: break wall of text]

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, but it’s not Youtube making the content I guess is my problem.

        They might not be making the content, but providing a platform for video is not cheap.

        Providing a platform that allows anyone to upload a ridiculous 10 hours in a single video in whatever crazy resolution they want, for free, really is not cheap. Then the bandwidth to deliver that 10 hour video at 4K, not to mention infrastructure to handle millions upon millions of people around the world is really really really not cheap.

        So its not like they’re not contributing anything. Reddit OTOH handled mostly text, which is cheap. Most of everything else like images and videos were just links to other hosts that did the heavy lifting like imgur or YT

    • Vespair@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      You have already been paying Google for that 6+ hours before even a penny came out of your account - you’re just been paying in data. We have to stop pretending Google is some good guy that left an open platform in the world and just said “if you use it we’ll show you some ads.”

      Ads aren’t even the main revenue stream for Youtube, data is. All of these points about “paying for a service” become moot the moment we acknowledge the value of the data Google is farming from our interactions. This is how we’re paying for Youtube. If you choose to buy Youtube Premium, understand that you’re paying to not have ad interruption. You aren’t paying for Youtube, because that was already happening, you’re just paying for the convenience of avoid ads.

    • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Honestly, is this true? How do you keep on top of content you actually wanna watch? I’m not sure since when but youtube recommendations have gone so downhill and a lot of the content creators I used to like don’t release as much as they used to so even when I wanna browse YouTube there isn’t anything I wanna see.

      • lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Over time I’ve curated the list of creators I watch, so my recommendations are pretty good at feeding me what I like, though I do usually have to scroll through a lot of junk. And when the recommendations aren’t doing it, I’ll just manually go to a channel I like and find something and the algorithm will quickly adjust.

  • Living_Dead@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I am displeased with premium these days. My use of premium was to remove ads and give creators a little more money. The issue today is every single video will have a sponsor spot that is an ad. So here I am paying extra to get rid of ads and the creator just made their own. Using sponsor block has become a requirement to get past the wall of ads.

    • iAmTheTot
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t mind in video sponsor spots because at least the creators are being paid directly for those. Personally, I just skip em or if it’s a creator that makes them funny, I may just listen anyway.

      • Cataphract@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        Those sponsor spots absolutely blow my mind. They’re there, forever in the video no matter how times it’s viewed. That’s a lot of trust to have in an advertising relationship, both the creator (who is basically tattooing a person in a portrait they’re painting with an ad) and company have to determine if it’s enough compensation based on… feels I guess lol. I’m pretty sure there is some after data but how do you know which videos take off or not? Then if there’s any controversy, whole things a mess and I hope they get a lot for it.

      • P4ulin_Kbana@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t like these segments because they are either unavailable in my region or they are a promotion of a shitty product like Op**a **, that later will get called out for being from a terrible company.

    • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      They’re testing a function where it quickly skips to a point most people skip to effectively skipping sponsors. At least I got that experiment.

  • LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 months ago

    YouTube premium comes for free with my Google music subscription. Or the other way around. Idk

  • Lizardking27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    revanced

    ITT: lots of unpaid youtube premium shills.

    If youtube wants me to pay for their service, they can offer a service worth paying for instead of purposefully degrading their free service into an unusable mess in an attempt to force my hand.

    • salmoura@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      ITT: lots of unpaid youtube premium shills.

      It’s actually frightening; the lengths some would go to defend a private company’s interests.

    • emax_gomax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Preach. 1080p looks like dogsh*t now and they’ve been rolling out a premium only enhanced bitrate option. Yet another case of ruin what’s good to sell what everyone already had.

  • PineRune@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I kinda got grandfathered into Youtube Music by using (and enjoying) Google Music, and since YT Premium was only like $2 more, I got it. I primarily use it for the music. The no-ads is just a bonus for me, I guess.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 months ago

      I did the exact same. Google Play Music was actually a good service back in the day. I hated it when they turned it into YouTube Music. I complained about all the broken stuff, so they gave me a home speaker for free and upgraded me to YT Premium for a year. After that year I stuck with YT Premium, since it was less than $2 extra. They also fixed a lot of stuff I complained about. Not everything, but a lot of it. I think YT Music was released a bit before it was ready. Now it still has some issues, but is mostly fine.

      Usually I watch 1 or 2 YouTube videos a day and without Premium I would most definitely not. I opened a YouTube video on a computer I wasn’t signed in the other day and it started with a 2 minute unskipable ad about crypto stuff (an obvious scam). So I closed it real fast, no video is worth sitting through that. Even with Premium I still need SponsorBlock. But with that combination watching videos is actually fun.

      Still listen to YouTube Music all day at work, so that’s a good value for money for me.

      • variants@possumpat.io
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think that’s why a lot of people dislike youtube premium, because it seems they made the free youtube intentionally very annoying to use without it. Similar to spotify where if you use the free version there’s a ton of ads and half of them are from spotify themselves asking if you’re tired of the ads

        • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s exactly this for me. Maybe Spotify and YTP are worth it, maybe supporting them does more good than harm, but there’s no way in hell you’re going to annoy money out of me. If you can’t respect me as a free user, you don’t deserve my money, especially when that money won’t be going to the artists I’m there for.

          Seriously, the best ad is a good basic version.

    • minnix@lemux.minnix.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I wonder what happened to me then? I had Google music for $7.99 a month, then when they changed to YouTube music they gave me YouTube Red at the time as part of my subscription. Years later I’m still paying $7.99 (+ tax) and it’s changed from Red to Premium.

      • Skanky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Same here. My monthly is $8.42. It’s kinda hard to beat that deal, but man, i sure wish Google would fix a lot of stuff that’s making YouTube / Music a really crappy experience.

  • JATth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I have begun to see that YT is being hostile to adblocker users - and this worries me. I assume YT is already probing the clients to see which are circumveting the ads.

    I had an (let’s say unconventional) idea at one point: an add-on which only purpose is to show the YT ads in the background which uBO blocked. All of the blocked ads would be played (eventually) - except that the user can just ignore this happening in background and wouldn’t be actually seeing the ads. I.e. the browser would just move playing the ads into a background container not visible to the user.