this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024

770 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59626 readers

3064 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

770

YouTube's server-side ads resulted in a black screen for ad blocker users (www.ghacks.net)

submitted 3 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

237 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mashable reports that users ran into a black screen on YouTube, and that it stayed for about 6 seconds before the video began playing. The reports indicate it affected several browsers including Firefox, Edge, Vivaldi.

Some users joked that they would rather see a black screen than an ad. While that's certainly a better experience, it does waste precious seconds of our time. A simple workaround for the black screen on YouTube is to just refresh the page, hit F5 as soon as the page starts loading. uBlock Origin's filters were updated with a patch to resolve the problem, the add-on updates its filters automatically. If you are still experiencing the black screen issue, just open the extension's dashboard and manually update the filters. This tug-of-war is getting annoying, but it appears to me that Google's efforts are actively promoting the use of ad blockers, instead of attracting new subscribers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (12 children)

What's the endgame here for users?

Do we just want a reasonable subscription price? Something we can genuinely afford?

If youtube doesn't play ads then they cant remain a service. At least not as it is today. Hosting costs money.

Im not shilling for them, i dont want ads either. And google are a terrible company. But im trying to be realistic.

Do we want cheap subscription?

Or a reduced service that can be maintained without so many ads

Do we just want 5 second skippable ads back?

Im just seeing this fight progressing to the point were youtube becomes subscription only and the ad blocker users have to pay or lose the service they obviously want to access.

[–] coldy@lemmy.world 33 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I remember the days of tasteful ad banners on the internet. Those are long gone. Now everything has to be an obtrusive unskippable autoplay 30 second ad or cover half the screen.

It is not reasonable to browse the internet without an adblocker anymore, regardless of privacy concerns...

[–] mynameisigglepiggle@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I remember when banners weren't tasteful and the internet was the wild west

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Email spam ads in 1999...

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 31 points 3 months ago

They're already harvesting my data. The greedy fuckers can fuck right off if they think I'm going to pay a subscription for that. It's not as if Google isn't profitable as it is. They just want more, and it will never be enough.

[–] kintrix@linux.community 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think the baseline of what I would want is:

Have actual moderation of the ads. Don't allow malware ads, don't allow porn ads etc
Don't allow obtrusive ads, or at least categorize them and have preferences. Do NOT play my ads 2x the volume of whatever I was watching.
Don't interrupt my video with ads. Play before or after. Ideally after, but I can see why that would not be feasible. I guess it is also feasable if the creator marks ad breaks, like the current-day sponsor segments.

I genuinely think Youtube premium is alrightish as it is. I wouldn't pay for it; though, since I do not want to give my money to Google. They are getting enough out of me that I don't want to give them.

I honestly just want the alternatives, like PeerTube, to have a funding model, which allows creators to get paid. Donations? Sure. Optionally ads? Sure. I think peertube having opt-in ads that go to the creator would go a long way.

[–] IdleSheep@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Don't interrupt my video with ads. Play before or after. Ideally after, but I can see why that would not be feasible. I guess it is also feasable if the creator marks ad breaks, like the current-day sponsor segments.

FYI ad placement and type is decided by the creator not youtube. If you see a video full of ads in the middle it's because the creator of that video chose it to be so.

[–] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 15 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not necessarily true (though I'm sure in most cases it is). I remember cases where creators had to specifically ask Youtube support to disable mid-roll ads since they were disabled on the creators side but viewers still saw them. Also happened with non-monetized videos/channels. But it's been at least a year since I saw the last case of that, so maybe Youtube has fixed it in the meantime.

[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, just like Twitch, it seems that YouTube has a way of conveniently "forgetting" these directives every now and then

[–] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yep. Sadly, in both companies management seems to be kinda inept when it comes to building proper user support

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Not inept, malicious.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Me personally? I just want to watch them burn. Google I mean. This is my endgame

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I love this

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah if we applied modern politics to corporations I think a lot of solid bbq could come out of it.

We need to start to shit on exxon like we shit on republicans

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My problem is that paying for premium doesn’t actually remove the ads. YouTube fucked creators so hard that they started running their own sponsorship segments and product placements. So with premium I’m still paying to watch ads.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well thankfully SponsorBlock still works whether or not you're a Premium subscriber. There's also always YouTube ReVanced for mobile (which has SponsorBlock built-in). There's no reason to ever have to put up with an online ad, no matter the source.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure but I’m not gonna pay for something I still have to actively fight with is the point.

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

That's not an issue with SponsorBlock because all it does it automatically skip parts of the video you specify. Google isn't going to war with SponsorBlock, and even if they did, I doubt there's much they can do, given the nature of how the addon works. So there's nothing to "actively fight with". Just set and forget.

[–] sexual_tomato@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 3 months ago

Do we just want a reasonable subscription price?

Yay, basically. I paid for premium when I could afford it because I want the platform to keep working and I hate ads.

Premium prices went up without a lot of value for me so I quit paying. Technically premium offers a lot but the core feature that I actually cared about (YouTube without ads) never changed in value. If I had the option of only paying for that, I'd do it. To me, YT is a higher priority than any other streaming service. But they don't provide a way for me to only pay for the stuff I care about

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Let creators choose: normal ads or sponsors. Not both. YouTube getting part of the sponsorship deal.

If they choose ads, YouTube goes back to 1 shippable ad after 1 second.

A subscription which is just "no ads". No YouTube music, not Google drive, no nothing. Just a cheap "no ads" subscription.

That being said, even if option 1 happens, I'm probably not uninstalling ublock. Once YouTube forced me to install it, it's impossible to use the internet without it. Actions have consequences.

[–] Coil@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I'd seriously consider a sub that just removed ads if the price is fair. I don't give a shit about premium, red or whatever it's called.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There already is a subscription service, it's called YouTube Red or Premium or something.

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yes, i said that, that one point was more about making it cost less so its affordable.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Remember when good ads used to be unobtrusive? Return to that.

[–] Llewellyn@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

They were?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

I’m actually rediscovering YouTube right now. A few years back it seemed like too many attempts were a huge unskippable ad, for a short video. Ads were way too high a percentage. And even when a video was a bit longer, any attempt to scroll was met with more ads, and maybe getting reset to the beginning

This time around, I typically see one ad, skippable after 5 seconds, then another every 15 minutes or so. While I’d rather not have ads, it’s not bad. Even better, content has matured enough in the years since I first tried it, that there’s actually longer stuff worth watching: the percentage of ad time is much lower, so I do get entertainment value rather than just be fed constant ads. I could watch that.

[–] Arkhive@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’ve been toying with a “Pay Per View” model for a bit. But it’s sort of modified.

Basically you can “pay what you want” on a per view basis. You as a user get to decide how valuable your view is and pay a creator that much each time you watch a video. Maybe this gets linked to watch time somehow to avoid people just spamming short content. YouTube presumably gets a cut to keep the lights on.

Creators making actually good content will hopefully attract viewers willing and able to pay, and viewers that have the means and really like a creator can up the amount they are paying. This could be on a per channel basis, or just a blanket setting of I pay someone ¢10 a view or something.

Idk, seems like a bit of a silly idea now I type it out

[–] Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Its very socialist. So i like it.