HarkMahlberg

Thanks for adding an update to your post OP. Good to know cool heads prevailed!

I thought that bit was hysterical.

"Tell me you've never been employed before without telling me."

"I prefer discord for business communication."

Your waking life for minimum wage and your dreams for free.

Am I drunk or does the thumbnail look like China owns Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan? WTF?

Thanks. I tried to post the original link but it just says "No posts." Weird.

!meanwhileongrad

I think there's some truth to that, but in my admittedly "outside-looking-in" experience, most full-time content creators have other means of raising money to operate: Patreon, merchandise, Twitch subscriptions, YT Membership, video sponsorships, etc. So I don't think the total loss of advertising would lead to the total loss of content creators. You'd lose some, but others would survive. People like making content even when there's no profit motive at all, it's just less feasible to do it at an industrial scale if you don't have more solid financial banking.

Consider Twitch subscriptions. You pay $5 to a streamer, you never see ads on their stream. No ads doesn't mean no streamer. Likewise, streamer still streams even if you don't subscribe, you just see the ads. As a business model, this is a little neater, tidier, than Google's. On a technical level, it's also better defended against adblockers since ads are injected into the stream, they're not a separate stream you can just block.

Yes they "need" to stop adblock, but for the advertisers, not for the content creators.

I think for a while, their strategy to ignore adblockers worked just fine. User counts were rising, ad payouts could be and would be cut, ads could be and would be placed in different parts of the video, videos that weren't monetized were getting ads thrown in just to make Youtube/Google/Adsense money. YT was pulling lots of levers to keep the value of advertising on the platform high.

That is, until Adpocalypse. My theory is, after this point, advertisers began to question how many more levers could be pulled until they addressed the elephant in the room, an elephant that was getting larger and larger: the adblockers. Let's be fair to Google (ugh), it would be much much easier to pull all those levers, than to tackle the technical challenge of stopping client-side software from running on their website. Once interest rates rose, and advertiser pressure reached it's current peak, Google started taking anti-adblocker actions: Manifest V3 to kill ublock on Chrome, Youtube's current system, etc.

They need people who won’t watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs.

This assumes that the biggest cost to Youtube is serving the content, not storing the content. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's a valid question because if storage is the larger cost, then it doesn't matter how many visitors visit the site, Youtube is still warehousing all that content. By the way, in that scenario, it's actually better for Youtube to keep as many viewers on the site as possible, adblockers or not, because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.

I mean what business survives with zero income?

A business that kills it's competitors by operating at a loss at first, and then jacks up its price once consumers have nowhere else to go.

I wish the US had anything even close to this level of consumer protections and rights.

Even when they seize the opportunity to poach nearly half of their competitor, they still think they gotta prop up an office instead of letting them work from home. Hilarious.

Which is weird because we have our own edit indicators. Maybe a future enhancement on the federation side of things.

Ah: "Yes I editted it within the first like 3 minutes of posting…" maybe kbin doesn't count that.