- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Honestly, it’s the terrible content moderation policies that are going to kill YouTube, not a certain type of video.
Bingo. I don’t find shorts all that appealing (especially since I can’t cast them to a TV! Wtf, seems like core function there) but I agree, the REAL problem with YouTube is how much creators have to top toe around demonization.
“Demonetization” is just what YouTube’s promises to advertisers look like when they affect video creators.
Money on YouTube flows from advertisers. The revenue from charging advertisers to show ads is split between YouTube/Google and the video creator. If your video is not shown with ads, then there is no revenue to split.
YouTube gives advertisers a very small control over what videos their ads are shown on. They have a few different classifications of videos, and advertisers can choose which ones they want to be seen with. Advertisers are paying for the service of YouTube putting their ads on videos — but only the videos that YouTube thinks the advertiser does want to be seen with.
If your video is fully “demonetized”, that means YouTube has decided that no advertisers want to be seen with it; or that they are not willing to take revenue from showing ads on that video. But they’re still hosting it, making it available to viewers.
Video creators’ revenue is a share of the ad income from YouTube showing the video (and accompanying ads). A “demonetized” video is one that doesn’t show any ads — so there is no revenue to split. It’s not that YouTube is taking all the revenue and leaving none to the video creator. They’re not making any, because they don’t think the advertisers would be okay with being charged to be seen alongside that video.
However, the creator of a “demonetized” video is still receiving value from YouTube. It is not free to host that video — especially if it is popular. Network bandwidth, data storage, and transcoding of video for viewers’ browsers are not free; YouTube covers the cost of these. YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense, rather than censoring those videos by taking them down.
YouTube is willing to host a lot of videos that they make zero money from, at their expense
That’s just not true…they’re hosting it because they data-farm the living shit out of both the creator and anyone that gets tangentially close to their site. More content = more people visit = more data on these people = more money…They make a lot of money on this data, even if no ads are shown on a video, and are by no means doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Yeah, but they aren’t making nearly the amount of money on the video as they would with the ads, and no where near enough to compensate the creators beyond free hosting.
You can still publish demonetized content, just don’t expect to make money from it on YouTube.
They use that data to sell ads at you across the entire internet. Google is making plenty of cash off those “demonitized” videos.
I didn’t say it’s charity. I said the video creator (who wants people to see their video) is receiving a service from the video host for no charge, which otherwise the creator would have to pay for. Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don’t believe me, go try doing it yourself.
If the creator didn’t think they were receiving any benefit, they would just take that video down. They sometimes do, but usually they don’t.
Publishing a book costs money. Someone has to buy the paper from the paper makers, and the ink from the ink makers. Someone has to line up the print on the page. Those people have to get paid, so they can go buy a sandwich and pay their rent. So, publishers exercise some judgment in not printing books that they don’t expect to sell, because they’ve gotta pay their bills, including parts and labor.
Same goes for video. Hosting a video costs money. Servers cost money. Power costs money. Network connectivity costs money. The people who run those services need to get paid so they can buy a sandwich and pay their rent. If YouTube is hosting your video, even if they’re not paying you a share of any ad revenue (because they’re not getting any), they’re paying bills that otherwise you would have to pay.
I’m not saying you’ve gotta be grateful or something. I’m saying if you want to understand what’s going on in the world, you can’t do that without understanding the actual bills that people are actually paying.
To put it simply: The hosting costs of demonetized videos are paid for by the hosting of monetized videos.
Don’t believe me? Take your video and store it on a server that you pay for, with network connectivity you pay for. That’s a thing you can do. You can even do it with Fediverse technology. However, it will in fact cost you some amount of money.
Hosting your own video on your own storage and network bill is not free. If you don’t believe me, go try doing it yourself.
I know this is true but why do I see so many people on lemmy pushing for self-hosting and even talking about it like its some low rent hobby?
It’s not exactly an expensive hobby, but it’s also not free.
YouTube hosts a lot of videos.
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — “not free” times “a lot” equals “big bucks”.
And — by the fundamental theorem of financial calculus that I just made up — “not free” times “a lot” equals “big bucks”.
Finally, someone who gets my idea of math.
they’re all paying the bills by hawking raid shadow legends anyways, may as well not rely on youtube monetization anyways and host elsewhere
Case in point, when youtube buried one of Caitlin Doughty’s documentaries from Ask a Mortician.
The video in question: The Forgotten Disaster of the SS Eastland. It’s 43 minutes long, both well done, and respectfully done. Her team did a good job on it then some youtube automated system buried it for “violating community guidelines”.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=cN5hNzVqkOk
https://piped.video/watch?v=UCHt2MOVCbg
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I’m not even sure it is bad policies. I am pretty sure that they just don’t have moderators.
I doubt anyone reads 99.9% of reports.
So you get bigotry and hate, you get insane and deadly DIYs, you get 12yo girls being creeped while posting random 5s clips from their lives.
Not to mention just the vast amount of extraordinarily low-quality content YouTube serves up. It’s amazing how bad a lot of the videos it thinks you will like are. The algorithm makes no sense.
But hey, here’s 16 different Joe Rogan clips with sigma male music in the background.
The algorithm seems like it is optimized for profit, not for actually being a good platform.
That should mean engagement. It serves up such bad videos that I disengage.
Once in a while I’ll realize I just spent 20, 30 minutes looking at a streak of pretty decent stuff. Rare enough to be remarkable. Usually after just 3 or 4 consecutive crap clips I’ll close it down and get back to work.
I doubt anything disengages a user faster than low-quality content. I bet it does it even faster than the authoritarian politics and bigotry YouTube seems to inexorable serve you.
If that were true, it wouldn’t be the way it is.
Just because it causes your disengagement, doesn’t mean it causes disengagement with the vast majority of their userbase.
They’re also more concerned with ad views and clicks, so if you’re not the kind of person who gives a crap about ads… they don’t really care that much about you.
This is predicated on the belief that Google/YouTube is run in a 100% hyper-competent way. I don’t buy that.
Google does things the easiest way possible to make tons of money. They make unforced errors all the damn time.
They don’t have to be 100% competent, but they are very competent at what they want to do… which is monetize the technologies and services they provide. They’re not trying to make something that people can use well and enjoy… they’re making things to make a shit-ton of money. The two goals are not generally mutually inclusive.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they’re all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever… which is confusing considering they’re a multi-billion dollar company and not just some guy in a shack banging rocks together to see how they sound.
Yours, on the other hand, is predicated on the belief that they’re all super-incompetent and have no capability of doing anything right ever
Nope. It’s only this specific thing that I necessarily think they’re doing a bad job of. And I’m right; they are. Their algorithm is a struggling baby compared to TikTok and YouTube at large is not a major profit center (and indeed may not be profitable at all – but they maintain it because abandoning it would be too costly for them).
TikTok is so good at doing this thing that it is a profitable business for them. YouTube is struggling, and we can clearly see why.
The terrible content moderation policies are what keep it alive. No one subscribes to youtube so it’s primary customers are the ad agencies. And they want content moderation
This Shorts issue seems to have measurable, constant and immediate effect in ad revenue and therefore platform profitability. Bad content moderation may or may not decrease engagement but in the end Google is a commercial enterprise that’s looking at the numbers at hand.
deleted by creator
Not just terrible, but incredibly hypocritical.
Might? It already has.
If shorts were simply a separate section of YouTube with all of its functionality, then that’s understandable. But as they stand, shorts are just YouTube with both reduced functionality (forced vertical aspect ratio, no seek bar, time limit) AND all of the existing flaws (bad recommendation algorithm, reposted content, etc. )
Unless you are some kind of tech contrarian hipster, I don’t think there is one thing that YouTube shorts does better than TikTok, or heck, Instagram Reels.
no seek bar
I really don’t understand who thought that removing the seek bar from a video player was a good idea…
It’s actually there on mobile, just hidden.
I only tried it on desktop. There’s a tiny progress bar at the bottom, but you can’t interact with it.
Even TikTok has a seek bar and has for a long time.
I use it all time. What are you talking about?
Plus no volume control so you often get instantly ear blasted
That’s a mobile thing, it’s because having two volume controls was awkward
It technically has a seekbar, but it’s very hard to find and/or might be obscured by their capricious A/B randomized testing
deleted by creator
I have a seek bar, is it because I’m using Revanced? I just that ot was there
Pretty sure that’s one of the Revanced patches.
I use the regular app and the seekbar was always available for me.
Hmm. Guess I was wrong about that then.
Nope, official app has a seek bar on the bottom (I was using vanced before but had to reset my password which reset the login cookie and I am not trying to delete my downloads of years by trying to sign back in)
P.S. I have too many downloads, so if anyone has a method to extract them, I’ll be thankful.
I’m mostly fine with shorts, except for two things:
-
You can’t move around in them, it’s either play or pause and repeat, which sucks (as shorts don’t have to be short…)
-
On the homepage it doesn’t show who the short is from (which channel) without opening them
You also can’t adjust the volume in browser. You have to go to a normal video, change it, and then go back.
Install Better YouTube Shorts. You can thank me later.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/better-youtube-shorts/
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/better-youtube-shorts/pehohlhkhbcfdneocgnfbnilppmfncdg
Just use the system audio control?
But why do I have to do that when every other video player has a volume slider?
On the contrary, why bother hunting the down the slider for every different player when you could just use the system?
Just curious, since I use the youtube slider like once a month.
I’m not the guy you asked, but I assume they do as I do. My system volume is calibrated for all the various applications I use day to day, including video conferencing. If I have to adjust that, it means everything else is the wrong volume. I’d rather modify YouTube to be the right volume than everything else.
This. My system volume is calibrated to be similar across all applications, games, etc. This means all apps are individually adjusted to reach similar volume level. Why should I have to mess with all of my other volumes just random manager at Youtube decided a volume slider on shorts isn’t necessary despite the site still using volume from regular videos where it can be adjusted? This isn’t an issue with any other app or platform. Maybe the last Youtube video I watched had overly quiet or loud audio compared to the norm and I either have insanely loud audio or I can’t hear a damned thing and I can’t fix it quickly like on any other Youtube page.
Not everyone had a set of dedicated volume buttons, or wheel, etc. on their keyboard, so having to go into Windows settings or reach for a knob or button on the speakers themselves to adjust is a lot more than getting a slider like every other website in the world gives you.
You can’t move around in them, it’s either play or pause and repeat, which sucks (as shorts don’t have to be short…)
Oddly enough, this seems to be a desktop limitation. I can scrub backwards and forwards just fine on my phone.
Hopefully desktop PC hardware will become powerful enough to gain the ability to skip around in 30 second videos someday. I think I read that they expect them to be at parity with smartphone hardware in the next decade or two.
They don’t even need a seek bar, just support arrow keys
It’s also annoying that you can’t save them without using the hack where you change the URL.
You can scrub around in them. Look for the red bar on the bottom after the short starts. You can tap and drag on it and a little red circle will appear that will show briefly after you release.
You can move around in them. Atleast on Android, there is a hidden red bar at the bottom which becomes visible if you pause the video.
This is a problem with all of these Tik Tok clones (and even Tik Tok let’s you do it for some videos). It’d so annoying to be watching a 45 second reel but if I miss something, I have to watch the whole thing again
I have the exact opposite problem? I can skip around just fine in shorts, but can’t in reels… Is this due to A/B testing or am I dumb?
I simply prefer TikTok for short form videos due to unique community and reasonably entertaining algorithm.
I enjoy YouTube to the point of paying for Premium but I hate that my YouTube subscriptions feed on TV is littered with shorts that I have no way of disabling other than hiding them one by one (which I do to make a point).
Suits at Google will try to shove it into everyone’s throats until they get bored and someone adds it to killedbygoogle.com so why would anyone even bother with it.
This is why I use LibreTube. It just filters all the Shorts
I’m deep in Apple ecosystem and unfortunately this is not an option on Apple TV as far as I know.
You should consider leaving.
In case of Apple TV, it’s the smoothest TV software experience, leaps and bounds above any ad-ridden smart TV or aging Nvidia Shield. I used Android TV and it’s just jank. For a time I had HTPC with Kodi too, it’s been relegated to hosting Plex and downloading stuff from Usenet. I enjoyed freedom to install anything but ultimately this didn’t outweight better audio codec support on Apple TV.
ad-ridden smart TV
Oh the irony…
Not sure what you’re making a stab at.
Apple software is obviously ad free and I have no problem with paying for YouTube Premium due to value it provides. Some good soul on Lemmy also recommended me a way to block sponsored content via isponsorblocktv which is a script that runs on my server and skips sponsored segments by reading YouTube app state and sending fast forward commands like a remote would.
It’s amazing how much social credit you possibly have. Xi Jinping is proud of you.
Are you alright there mate?
-
What if we fucked over all of the people that like our website to try and cater to people that don’t like it?
Seems to be the current trend in social media this year…
This is to perfectly put.
Mind you those are (at least some of) the guys that killed animation and comedy sketches on youtube because they made it necessary for videos to be 10+ minutes long to be relevant.
Which I get a laugh out of, because in the early days youtube would not let you post any video longer than 10 minutes, unless you were a “special” approved account. Now, only 10+ minute videos matter. A complete about face.
deleted by creator
Using revanced. Disabled shorts. Watching these YT shorts & recommendations decays my brain cells
I blocked shorts with ublock origin.
Ive used blocktube.
It can also prevent auto pause. Hide the movies you can rent, hide specific channels, or videos with specific words in their title, etc
Advertising ruined YouTube years ago.
YouTube ruined YouTube
I swear to god these dumb social media sites are going to hell faster every day.
I used to like YouTube because I could watch all sorts of interesting things … funny things … informative things … things actually liked
Now my main YouTube recommended feed is filled with clickbait thumbnails of idiots making surprised or shocked faces to try to get your attention to get you to look at their dumb video of nonsense that has zero information and is not entertaining at all.
My take’s always been Monetization ruined YouTube.
Because if theres money to be made then theres a few million idiots that are happy to exploit the fuck out of the system and do essentially fuck all to earn cash.
But without money, the platform would have sunk.
It’s a harsh reality that all brilliant internet things have to face.
And i hate it.
Google ruined YouTube years ago.
I don’t mind grabbing my pitchfork and joining the “YouTube is already ruined party”, but two thoughts first:
That headline is so deliberately vague. It could literally be one employee who said “eh, I don’t think YouTube shorts is a good idea”.
The article itself doesn’t really give you any information that isn’t in the headline. It feels like an attempt to stoke anti-YouTube sentiment without providing any useful information.
…okay, with that out of the way…
Yeah, the current YouTube situation is pretty crap.
Yeah honestly these are some great points, and really it’s one of these reasons as to why I just dislike modern journalism today with the headlines as such.
It does cite internal metrics on ad revenues going down for three consecutive quarters due to lower potential to show ads in short videos compared to longer ones. It’s anonymous and doesn’t give solid figures but that’s what this article is about.
You should be able to remove Shorts from your feed. I never watch them and yet they fill my feed up making it jore difficult to find real content. I’m specifically talking about the smart TV app which throws them all in together.
I’m using some custom ublock origin filters that I found somewhere to block shorts across all of youtube:
!Youtube Shorts www.youtube.com###guide-content #endpoint[title="Shorts"]:upward(ytd-guide-entry-renderer) www.youtube.com###items #endpoint[title="Shorts"]:upward(ytd-mini-guide-entry-renderer) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse #dismissible ytd-rich-grid-slim-media[is-short]:upward(ytd-rich-section-renderer) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse ytd-grid-video-renderer:has(span.ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[aria-label="Shorts"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse ytd-rich-item-renderer:has(span.ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[aria-label="Shorts"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-search ytd-video-renderer:has(span.ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[aria-label="Shorts"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-watch-next-secondary-results-renderer ytd-compact-video-renderer:has(span.ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[aria-label="Shorts"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="subscriptions"] ytd-video-renderer span.ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[aria-label="Shorts"]:upward(ytd-item-section-renderer) m.youtube.com##ytm-reel-shelf-renderer m.youtube.com##ytm-pivot-bar-renderer div.pivot-shorts:upward(ytm-pivot-bar-item-renderer) m.youtube.com##ytm-browse ytm-item-section-renderer ytm-video-with-context-renderer:has(ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"]) m.youtube.com##ytm-browse ytm-item-section-renderer ytm-compact-video-renderer:has(ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"]) m.youtube.com##ytm-search ytm-compact-video-renderer:has(ytm-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[data-style="SHORTS"])Also separately, for blocking videos that don’t exist yet, which I also dislike:
!Youtube upcoming videos www.youtube.com##ytd-browse ytd-grid-video-renderer:has(ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[overlay-style="UPCOMING"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse ytd-rich-item-renderer:has(ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[overlay-style="UPCOMING"]) www.youtube.com##ytd-browse[page-subtype="subscriptions"] ytd-video-renderer ytd-thumbnail-overlay-time-status-renderer[overlay-style="UPCOMING"]:upward(ytd-item-section-renderer)He’s talking about smart tv app. If those “shorts” are being pulled from some other subdomain then perhaps a block rule on that domain set on the router would help. But best just not to use youtube.
I’m pretty sure shorts are just Youtube videos but with a different UI.
You can take the video ID from the URL of a Shorts clip and put it in a normal Youtube URL and the shorts video plays with the normal Youtube player.
Basically.
I don’t know what I would do with this. And I mentioned to someone else that I mostly watch YT on a Shield. Is this even relevant to me?
Surprising no one jumped onto you with thw revanced suggestions.
SmartTubeNext is what you want on TV platforms. You can turn shorts off. It blocks ads. And it has sponsorblock so it is configurable to additionally skip sponsor segments, self-promotion, intros, outros.
And as others have pointed out, you can also block them in browser with Ublock Origins and with Revanced which covers the desktop and mobile platforms.
I might have to look into that. I do wonder how it could know when a segment is sponsored.
I don’t care that much about the ads since we already have Premium so we don’t see the ads anyways.
Premium doesn’t skip the ads in the videos
That’s what 2X speed is for.
Well this is a passive function.
It’s crowdsourced and works quite well, been using it for the last year.
Thanks for the heads up
What I want is a YouTube viewer that cuts out ads that I can use on my Mac or my iPhone to use on my TV with a Chromecast.
Chromecast is how I view all my TV content.
You’ll have to take that up with Apple. They’re the ones dictating that you can’t use any of the wonderful apps we have on Android.
As for Chromecast, SmartTube Next is what you want
deleted by creator
Check out https://ghcr.io/nichobi/sponsorblockcast - run it on your LAN, and it’ll use SponsorBlock to clean up any YouTube-Chromecast stream you want.
Thanks!
And of course the thing I mentioned has now been superseded by https://github.com/gabe565/CastSponsorSkip
deleted by creator
There’s a little hidden button on the Shorts pane that you can see when you hover it. It gives you the ability to hide them for 30 days if you click it.
They’ve started putting them in the recommended videos pane on the right when playing videos in a browser. Worst of all, they put it near the top and in a much larger cell than the rest of the recommended videos.
I watch YouTube mostly on my TV (using a Shield) so I don’t think that would work for me.
deleted by creator
But the Shield was specifically bought to stream.
As a viewer I agree with their assessment.
Shorts is (for me) a worse viewing experience and it’s just more useless junk tha clutter up my youtube main page.
That’s why I have a Firefox extension that automatically redirects from shorts. Although, if Google’s new Web Environment Integrity goes through I guess I could kiss stuff like that goodbye.
Yeah I usually watch YouTube on my shield and it clutters up every channel with junk I have no desire to watch.
I don’t disagree but there are some channels that do great shorts. For example check out squat university shorts.
Guys, I think I found The Algorithm’s Lemmy account!!!
God I hate shorts. Luckily you can disable them. But youtube is so riddled with ads in general, it makes watching without adblock impossible. If they’d go back to one 3 second ad at the very beginning, I might even tolerate it. But the current shitshow? Not on my system.
Doesn’t help that they have a whooping 113 trackers running simultaneously.
Wait how do you disable shorts this is the first I’m hearing of this
with uBlock Origin, right click on the shorts area > click on ublock’s “Block element” > select the Shorts section > Block
Blocking with uBlock really isn’t the same as disabling. Disabling implies you’re using the app and it’s a setting.
You can disable them in Vanced and Revanced. NewPipe either disables them by default or doesn’t even support them, which is fine with me.
None of those apps are the original and official app. Which is pretty obviously what this was about. I used to use Vanced and it never worked as easily as everyone seems to imply, and I never could get it to cast. Vanced is no longer available on the PlayStore btw, and the same can be expected for every app that tries to offer YouTube content, modified.
Right, well, it seems like you don’t want solutions and would rather just whine about something.
deleted by creator
Modded apps and extensions. Revanced, Smarttubenext, shortsblock, etc.
I target the Shorts container row element with uBlock, so it’s removed permanently from the grid.
Details please!
deleted by creator
YouTube shorts was the dumbest fucking idea. They have a niche: long-form (as in >1min) video content. They are dominant in that niche. Then they saw TikTok was popular and dominating the short-form video scene, and their response was… “we should switch to making more short form”. WTF?! And on top of that, they’ve diverted resources away from their main product (longer videos) as the article says. It just seems like such a catastrophic unforced error.
YouTube have such a stranglehold on the >1m market, that’s why they can afford to stagnate in that area and look into other markets. They don’t have to fear a competitor threatening their core market any time soon.
not only is the shorts UI shitty but the shorts themselves are often shitty imo, or at least the “scroll through shorts one at a time” linear format means you see a lot more videos you wouldn’t click on intentionally.
“No YouTube I do not want to watch Jordon Fucking Peterson. I will NEVER want that. Fuck all the way off.”
I stopped watching shorts because of the unwanted boosts of fascist content.
Silver lining: It gave me the opportunity to “dislike” Jordan Peterson, which was not an opportunity I previously had.
I mean, I guess I always HAD the option, but there’s something to be said about having somebody serve it up on a platter like that.
Hey, boosts engagement, he’s happy all the same.
I watch shorts but I never swipe up. I pick which ones I want to watch.
I hate that I get such random shit in my feed when I really only look at art videos - like my scrolling should be nothing but people drawing but random shit like slime videos or some ass hat and his kid.
Yeah YouTube really likes to inject videos you wouldn’t normally watch into your algorithm. It’s pretty annoying. I would never seek out religious videos, and never have on YouTube, yet they keep making their way into my feed. Even voting them down doesn’t seem to change the frequency.
For real. I’ve never searched a prank video in my life but they come up during shorts.
The interface isn’t consistent between videos and shorts.
You can rewind and fast forward videos on phones by double tapping the left or right hand side of the video, but doing that on shorts just likes it.
I literally could not understand what half the ones I saw were even supposed to be about last time I went on YouTube. Like they were just random people doing shit with no punchline or point.
might? Shorts are the main reason I found alternatives like Freetube, Newpipe and Invidious; and continue to look for actual alternative platforms.
if there was just a checkbox to turn them off forever I’d probably still be on the mainpage.
deleted by creator
I already have around 50 plugins to unfuck youtube specifically … which I should really uninstall now that I never visit the site
Thats how reddit got, too many plugins. Plus it’s bad faith to hide dark mode behind an account, and new reddit sucks so that doesnt count.
Might ruin YouTube? Brother. It’s already ruined.
having no proper competitor is the only thing that’s still keeping youtube on the boat.
deleted by creator
