I think this will only end up with YouTube winning. Google has been caution for years, but they can bring the big guns if they see there are no more options. Google is clearly desperate to bring those numbers up and they don’t care if user experience suffers.
First, they can decide to deploy a restrictive CSP that prevents external scripts from running in the page. This would break lots of extension that work on YouTube.
And then they can just enforce DRM like Netflix. This will be horrible for users, cost them more to serve, and potentially break Youtube for older clients. But then ads will be impossible to skip, and downloading videos will because almost impossible.
But if they decide the numbers are worth it, they will do it. But honestly at this point I really don’t care. Will I miss YouTube? Sure. But I rather watch less content on nebula than support this horrible user experience.
Indeed. It could be a huge win for Nebula, in fact. At least I hope if the users on YouTube lose that a different platform wins and it won’t just be a net loss for users and YT-competitors.
Yeah that is unfortunate. They will probably never fully replace Youtube until they change drastically. They also serve a niche of interests only. It happens to align with my interests really well but it’s definitely not for everyone.
I don’t think they really have a goal of replacing youtube. I think the end goal is becoming an old school style media production organization, one that is collectively owned and bridges the Gap between social media and Hollywood.
I wish more publishers and creators could move away from YouTube, and stop relying (indirectly) on YouTube’s targeted ads.
There’s no silver bullet today, but a mix of alternative platforms (PeerTube, Nebula, Patreon…) and different way to get a revenue (subscription, donations, sponsors and non-targetted ad segments). I believe no alternative solution is feature-complete yet. Hopefully viewers will put some resources on alternatives, not just on AdBlock technologies, and follow creators who move away from YouTube.
The problem is that YouTube will always offer the best terms for initial creators. Hosting is free, the platform will sometimes help advertise you to your likely audience, and it may offer the first way to monetize the channel. A federated system isn’t going to provide nearly the same benefits.
YouTube does have the advantage of scale, I wouldn’t expect a federated solution to match their condition, but I’m hoping it can become good-enought as an alternative.
PeerTube isn’t going to provide a solution, they explicitly state this in their FAQ. But there’s no reason why other platform couldn’t handle monetization AND federate through AgtivityPub (or its successor). If Nebula or Patreon wanted, they could join the federation and make some videos accessible this way. The one holdout would be video that are only accessible to paid subscribers, they wouldn’t make them freely accessible via a federation.
the uploader can display a support button under the video […]
We did not go any further, as we refuse to tie our code to a particular content funding method, that might not fit all communities and deter others. It’s the reason why we encourage developers to use the PeerTube plugin API to create their own monetization system.
None of the three items I mentioned involved scale. Two of them mentioned cost to host and one mentioned advertising the creators’ work.
The CEO of Nebula has explicitly stated he isn’t creating a YouTube competitor. Nebula has a paywall which is important to its business model. It could never afford self hosting for free.
Even if PeerTube solves the hosting cost problem, you still have two advantages that a YouTube like system has over a PeerTube like system.
It’s interesting that no one is bringing up Vimeo in these discussions but I remember a thing a few years back where they disabled features that would make them a YouTube alternative (private links that you could share with your Patreons only or smth?) and when ask about this they stated that their target market isn’t small creators.
Anyway I would really hope that all this would bring people to Peertube like the Twitter implosion did for Mastodon and the Reddit fails for Lemmy but it doesn’t seem like it.
Except if all developers, who are also power users of the internet, switches to another browser which allow ad blockers, all web based apps and websites will shift to work better in Firefox then on Chrome. Then the regular user will also switch.
Yup. I’m a web dev. Switched from testing first in Chome to testing first in Firefox a few months ago. And I had been Chrome first for probably 10 years prior. Some of our customers (enterprises) also started deploying/spec for FF by default in the past year.
“against all odds” my left asshole. This is always the way of hacker vs defense, it’s always an arms race and the attacking side always has the advantage.
Defense is always playing reactive. Attack gets to be creative and figure out how to break whatever tools defense has. Defense has to wait until the vulnerability is found and then deal with it. It’s the nature of the arms race with regards to cyber security.
I remember the mini-war between AOL and third-party IM clients. There were days where AOL would send 15kB patches to AIM multiple times a day to break compatibility with the other apps. And they would then fix it within hours.
So AIM was built on an existing chat protocol called OSCAR. The same protocol used in other services. So people eventually figured out how to make chat clients that could log into many different IM services on one app.
This was not sanctioned by AOL, but they allowed it at first. Then they decided you HAVE to use the official AIM client to talk to people on AIM. The third-party developers ignored AOL, so they entered into a tug-a-war match for a while.
Because AOL was using known software to make AIM work, there was only so much they could do to keep their client working while also blocking everyone else. Eventually it became too much of a hassle, so AOL relented and third-party clients kept working until the service was shutdown.
You just reminded me of DeadAim I used to use back in the day. More features. Could log into multiple accounts at the same time with tabs to view different buddy lists. Those were the days…
“against all odds” lmao what. Anyone who’s been paying attention since the dawn of the internet would know that youtube isn’t winning this one. The odds were 100% in the favour of the hackers.
At least one popular ad blocker, AdBlock Plus, won’t be trying to get around YouTube’s wall at all. Vergard Johnsen, chief product officer at AdBlock Plus developer eyeo, said he respects YouTube’s decision to start “a conversation” with users about how content gets monetized.
ABP has always been a shitty adblocker because it’s meant to make money rather than actually block ads effectively. They’ve been accepting money from ad networks to allow their “unintrusive ads” (an oxymoron) for over a decade now, and I’m sure Google is paying for this to happen now.
I’m okay with unobtrusive ads as long as the place serving them up has a modicum of common sense sensibilities about their impact and has a rigorous enough vetting process that they’ll never be used as payloads for malicious software. Ads can be a way to find out about products I might otherwise never know about. I’m not outright against all ads as a concept. Hell, sometimes it’s an actual art form in rare cases.
I’m just against them taking up more space than the content itself, impeding my access to the content in any way, hijacking my property, or getting hijacked by malware which then hijacks my property.
Too bad Google doesn’t want to have a conversation, at least one that isn’t at gunpoint. I wouldn’t mind unintrusive ads. If it stayed at banner ads and things like that, I would probably enable them. Shoving crap in the middle of videos just makes it a horrible experience, so I’m going to get rid of them.
An Adblocker allowing ads to… start a conversation that’s already been had and over for decades at this point.
People don’t like intrusive ads. Give intrusive ads and we’ll always find ways around them. It’s a story as old as the internet. Google is no exception. You may have billions of dollars and thousands of employees but nearly everyone in the damned world hates ads. You can try to fight it all you want. The only reason that nearly anyone puts up with ads is they want to support the creator or don’t yet know they can avoid the ads. Even those supporting the creators don’t like the damned things.
I’ve seen so, so many people watching ads on their phones
Ads are a genuine real security concern if it became a choice between YouTube and adblockers it’s bye YouTube for me.
Its a battle YouTube isn’t going to win, and to be honest YouTube has never and will never be a viable business their best bets just asking for donations and playing nice to anyone using it.
And I am fucking loving it. With this move, Google has effectively started an arms race between the team they have implementing this Adblock-blocking crap and the vast majority of the technically competent internet users in the world.
Unless the rules of how the internet works fundamentally change, Google is not going to win.
i wouldn’t be surprised if this was partly a war between the team they have implementing this and the team they have implementing this, in their spare time
I’m not that optimistic. They could implement some sort of aggressive DRM. In the US, all they have to do is label protection as DRM and then it becomes illegal to even have any discussion of how to circumvent it. The overwhelming majority of users aren’t going to bother with any ad blocking. In the end, this could end up hurting Google if people build decentralized Youtube alternatives and then they could take viewers away from Youtube.
Well, in the US you can legally talk about it so long as you do not actually do it. It’s similar to how an actor is able to talk about commiting murder without getting in trouble.
By some argument, section 103 of the DMCA (which is what grandparent post is referring to) does make it illegal to even talk about DRM circumvention methods.
illegal to: (2) “manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in” a device, service or component which is primarily intended to circumvent “a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work,” and which either has limited commercially significant other uses or is marketed for the anti-circumvention purpose.
If youtube implements an “access control measure” by splicing the ads with the video and disabling the fast-forward button during the ad, and you go on a forum and say “Oh yeah, you can write a script that detects the parts that are ads because the button is disabled, and force-fast-forwards through those”, some lawyer would argue that you have offered to the public a method to circumvent an access control measure, and therefore your speech is illegal. If you actually write the greasemonkey script and post it online, that would definitely be illegal.
This is abhorrent to the types among us for whom “code IS free speech”, but this scenario is not just a hypothetical. DMCA has been controversial for a long time. Digg collapsed in part because of the user revolt over the admins deleting any post containing the leaked AACS decryption key, which is just a 32-digit number. Yet “speaking” the number alone, aloud, on an online platform (and nothing else!) was enough for MPAA to send cease and desist letters to Digg under DMCA, and Digg folded.
Thanks for the heads-up. Definitely hope that if something like splicing ads in that some country like Russia or any other country that doesn’t care about US law or US copyright law would be able to write, host, and update methods to get around it on a server they control.
They would end up shooting themselves in the foot. They are on shaky ground already and it would only take a new platform that can entice a few of their top content producers over to lose enough chunks of their revenues to hurt. And all they have do is keep fucking around to find out what a tech-literate group of nerds who hate big corps can do when they are aligned in a certain direction.
Yeah, that is easy enough to build into the algorithm. Deprioritizing that sort of nonsense effectively would mitigate it gaining a foothold. The only reason why the current platforms don’t (in fact they prioritize it in many cases) is because discord is being equated with engagement and they see that as good for business. If you aren’t worried about business, then you can set up your priority algorithm to be more rational and egalitarian.
engadget.com
Oldest