Technology

59424 readers

3919 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

[email protected]

787

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies. (www.engadget.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

261 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Inside the 'arms race' between YouTube and ad blockers / Against all odds, open source hackers keep outfoxing one of the wealthiest companies.::YouTube's dramatic content gatekeeping decisions of late have a long history behind them, and there's an equally long history of these defenses being bypassed.

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I have changed my programs because twitch won against its methods. I used to use alt twitch player to get around the ad system. The app creator didnt care to update anymore and twitch's update broke the system.

All that did though was make me find alternative ways to ad block. If it came to it, if i was unable to block ads. I'd just never watch. Ads are usually full volume screaming at you, so its like an assault on you.

Either way, i think having more viewers is more important than getting an ad to EVERY watcher. IMO Youtube and twitch both lose money on offering their services to everyone. Some people will upload/stream to 0 viewers and i think that its like 50% of their creators. Thats a ton of wasted bandwidth and storage.

IMHO i think twitch could charge something like 3-5$ a month to broadcast a stream. Youtube could charge something like 10c an upload or something.

I get users needing to create content to grow viewerbase, but charge something extremely minimal to get back a little something.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think you would see significantly less streamers if you did that and they need streamers equally as much as they need viewers.

I bet a lot of the current top streamers would have never given it a chance if they had to pay first.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

More content creators are always good, but theres also people on there just wasting resources that will never be successful. Always stream to 0-2 people.

Idk, it's a tough choice. Which is why they most likely would never use a pay to create style.