• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1341 year ago

    to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:

    yes it is, if you just look at direct expenses of running it. but you’re overlooking the fact that it has enabled google to amass so much data(we’re taking about 500 hours worth of videos being uploaded per minute) that they can train anything with it.

    it’s a service that’s too big to fail. even whole governments, courts, and other institutions depend on it. so, I refuse to believe that YouTube will be non-existant because a sliver of users refuse to be profiled by invasive advertisements.

    • @Potatos_are_not_friends
      link
      English
      291 year ago

      it’s a service that’s too big to fail.

      I used to believe that.

      Then Elon Musk showed us that nothing is too big to fail.

      • TWeaK
        link
        fedilink
        English
        251 year ago

        Too big to fail is a lie told by bankers who don’t want to pay their losses.

        • @LemmysMum
          link
          English
          8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Digg was the front page of the Internet. Anyone remember MySpace? Posted any Vines lately?

          Was.

      • @Deftdrummer
        link
        English
        -61 year ago

        Twitter / X are far from failing simply because your bias is peeking through and “Musk bad”

        • @Dkarma
          link
          English
          41 year ago

          You musk fanboys are hilariously delusional. To pretend Twitter is doing even ok is a joke.

        • @Potatos_are_not_friends
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          Pretty sure my bias isn’t peeking when I have a dozen comments mocking ol’ Elong Muskrat.

    • @postmateDumbass
      link
      English
      17
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If youtube is such a burden, donate it to

      Cash-4-Clunker_Companies.com

      A new charity that takes your failing social media company off your hands (and your ledger!) and donates it to the United States Postal Service to administer and, after government streamlining, channel all profits into funding summer camp and spring break for our underprivilaged senators, congresspeople, and justices of federal rank or higher.

    • @Copernican
      link
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is where I am a bit curious. In a world where we didn’t have user tracking and just did ads the old fashioned way like television via over the air signals and used content as proxy for viewer interest, would folks still use ad blockers or accept having ads as part of the viewing experience? Is there a happy medium where users are willing to watch some ads, and advertisers don’t track everything but still get some measurement that there shit is being viewed by real people and not bots. IDK. Is there a minutes per hour of ads per content that makes sense for video?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        We just muted the TV during the ads and did something else until the show came back on. Ad breaks for regular shows like dramas were a predictable length of time, so you could time your bathroom or fridge run pretty well.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        I don’t mind ads if they’re solely keyword-based, and one per 30 mins or so. but I do mind the tracking by ad companies(most notably google and meta).

        but nowadays I’m so deep into privacy hole that I steer clear of anything that’s not FOSS, unless it’s absolutely necessary(e.g.: degoogled android). So naturally, ublock origin stays on all the time.

      • @xohshoo
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        for sure. I listen to a number of podcasts that instead of having dynamically inserted ads, still have the hosts do an ad read. I don’t mind that at all

    • @Buffalox
      link
      English
      8
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      to people saying YouTube is a moneysink for google:

      Who says that today? This was true about YouTube many years ago, before Google took it over, I doubt that’s still true.

      it’s a service that’s too big to fail.

      No it’s not, most content of value will have back ups and can be uploaded to other services.

    • @kvothelu
      link
      English
      21 year ago

      their data is worthless if they can’t serve ads

      • @jwagner7813
        link
        English
        11 year ago

        They’re serving ads just fine. They’re now targeting those that don’t want the ads and actively try to avoid them. That’s the main difference.

      • DudeBoy
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        The data has so many more uses than just ads. They sell the data, use it to train AI, etc. The data itself is more valuable than their entire ad network.