487
YouTube Says New 5-Second Video Load Delay Is Supposed to Punish Ad Blockers, Not Firefox Users (www.404media.co)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/firefox@lemmy.ml
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Firefox users are reporting an 'artificial' load time on YouTube videos. YouTube says it's part of a plan to make people who use adblockers "experience suboptimal viewing, regardless of the browser they are using."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 2 years ago (7 children)

I keep seeing people throw this idea out there but I have yet to have received a reasonable answer to a simple question: How would content creators get paid on a federated video platform?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    @I_Comment_On_EVERYTHING @CowsLookLikeMaps
    Patreon?

    Yes, content providers make money on YouTube, but considering that Google makes more than then they do as a percentage certainly begs for some other solution.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I have a bit over 60 YouTubers I'm subscribed to on YouTube. Am I supposed to pay $60+ every month to have access to them? The cheapest patreon I've ever seen was for $1 and that wasn't even for full access just a "buy me coffee, thanks" tier.

    What about discoverability, how am I supposed to randomly stumble across niche content creators that don't have a huge following?

    Not saying it isn't possible I just can't seem to wrap my head around how it would work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The other big question is who's paying for the infrastructure? If payments are done through a third party like Patreon, the host can't take a cut. Serving lemmy text and image content from a home server is one thing. Being a 4k streaming host is an entirely different business. Way more computing load and bandwidth, which means higher hosting costs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Ideally, it would be a P2P protocol where the main seeder is either the content creator directly, or a service paid by the content creator (who is funded by their audience and/or sponsors).

    I believe there are many podcasts that work somewhat like that (minus the P2P part, they just simply use RSS). Some hosting services have features to insert ads into the audio podcast being hosted.. so the content creators still can choose to do that if they want, but the advantage is that there's isn't a monopoly for a single hosting provider and you can access the podcasts from many different podcast apps without needing to rely on a specific website and company that decides how you can watch it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Instances could probably find ways to be ad supported or creators could do 3p sponsorships or ads in videos. Not everyone has to chip in to everything they subscribe to. It's still impossibly hard compared to youtube though.

    e: what about opt-in ads (banner or otherwise) for channels you want to support? could be cool

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent