The Enshittification of the Internet

[spopepro]

Really an absolutely brilliant piece here, and something that resonates with the thinking that has been bouncing around this place since before the beginning. But with everything internet "community" related going down (and reddit the latest being on the steep decline) I just wanted to again express appreciation for the non-commercial nature of this place. Sure... forums are kinda boomer shit, but I think history will show that ~2005-2013 forum and blog community was peak internet.

[suspectdevice]

Really an absolutely brilliant piece here, and something that resonates with the thinking that has been bouncing around this place since before the beginning. But with everything internet "community" related going down (and reddit the latest being on the steep decline) I just wanted to again express appreciation for the non-commercial nature of this place. Sure... forums are kinda boomer shit, but I think history will show that ~2005-2013 forum and blog community was peak internet.

WNYC's On The Media did a multipart interview with Cory a few weeks ago that was a great listen.

[monadnocky]

WNYC's On The Media did a multipart interview with Cory a few weeks ago that was a great listen.

I've never heard an OTM broadcast that wasn't brilliant.

[suspectdevice]

I've never heard an OTM broadcast that wasn't brilliant.

At this point the only media i consume is media criticism. Meta

[spopepro]

At this point the only media i consume is media criticism. Meta

If TV journalism has devolved into journalists interviewing other journalists (especially bad in sports media) then it follows the only interesting writing will be from Poynter, Columbia Journalism Review, and the likes. Hell, it’s what made OG deadspin great (and I assume now Defector, tho I wouldn’t read it enough to justify a sub).

[sk_tle]

Another intersting take on the new web full of ai generated content:
https://www.platformer.news/p/the-ai-is-eating-itself

Given how free search engines are now pretty much useless to find interesting and human generated content, I feel we might have to start doing stuff the old way on the web, hosting regular web page where we share our own curated links section, join webrings certified to be managed by humans, etc.

Has anyone tried kagi as its main search engine?

[monadnocky]

Bumping this.
And now, YouTube, in its ceaseless striving to transform itself into something utterly crap from something that was fairly cool, will no longer play videos with ad blockers enabled.
Goodbye, YouTube. Oh - and eat sh*t.

[Scott G.]

Bumping this.
And now, YouTube, in its ceaseless striving to transform itself into something utterly crap from something that was fairly cool, will no longer play videos with ad blockers enabled.
Goodbye, YouTube. Oh - and eat sh*t.

Reducing U-Tube viewing is a positive social good.

[sk_tle]

Bumping this.
And now, YouTube, in its ceaseless striving to transform itself into something utterly crap from something that was fairly cool, will no longer play videos with ad blockers enabled.
Goodbye, YouTube. Oh - and eat sh*t.

Reducing U-Tube viewing is a positive social good.

A number of youtubers are also proposing their stuff on Nebula.
https://nebula.tv/

Well, most youtubers are likely to embed ads from personal sponsors anyway.

[monadnocky]

A number of youtubers are also proposing their stuff on Nebula.
https://nebula.tv/

Well, most youtubers are likely to embed ads from personal sponsors anyway.

For some reason, those embedded ads never really bothered me - it wasn't too big of a deal to just hit the forward arrow a few times and be done with it. Also I don't begrudge someone personally taking advertising dollars (as opposed to Google taking the cash, although I'm sure that some of those embedded ad dollars go to Google and not the content creator). Now it's unavoidable, obnoxious, and for the most part you have to sit through a screeching T-Mobile ad every five minutes for 20-30 seconds while you're watching a frame building video.

I understand that there might be some methods of preventing these ads, but from a quick scan those solutions appear to be above and beyond my computer-touching abilities.

[Saab2000]

Reducing U-Tube viewing is a positive social good.

I disagree. YouTube is great for content that has no audience on other platforms. I watch a lot of content that’s very specific and of narrow interest. I’m watching a lot of videos on the evolution of EV charging and the EV space in general. It’s a subject that interests me but I’m a very narrow audience. Without a platform like YT this content doesn’t get made. Same for other tech reviews or science content I enjoy.

I’m a big consumer of YouTube content. The ads suck, but it’s otherwise a free service so I guess that’s how they make their money and I could opt into an option that is ad-free.

Obviously there’s a lot of junk on YT but some good cycling stuff as well. I watch Chris Horner, Lanterne Rouge, LA’s The Move occasionally, GCN, etc. These don’t exist without YT.

[72gmc]

Also a fan of YouTube. I curse whoever approved the gargantuan ad buy for Hertz and their favorite under inflated quarterback, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying a video of a skilled craftsman while I perform less skillful bike repairs.

[echappist]

This is getting a tad meta, and yes, I'm kvetching (it's Thursday after all). But these two posts contain two things I really dislike about discourse on the internet (another way of saying things that lead to internet discourse being less than ideal). One of them being sweeping generalizations in the first post, and the other being blanket statements such as "I disagree" or "not true".

The first post could have easily been tailored toward the more seedy part of U-Tube, whether those might be conspiracy theories being spewed, "influencers" peddling their worthless at best (and predatory at worst) wares, or videos whose only draw are scantily clothed women, the latter having a tendency to creep far up search results for many queries. When I want to see if there are videos of Puck Pieterse hopping barriers, somehow the first result under the "People also Watched" section falls into that third category, with no relevance to cyclocross. Afterwards, there are CX race footages, but that one video just somehow had to make its way really far up the results. Fortunately, the one video I did want to see (showing Pieterse hopping up a natural staircase of tree roots, and IIRC, filmed by @jstonebarger) is the top result.

Having said that, while the second post is logically sound (in the sense that negation is valid even if only a small subset is being contradicted), "I disagree" just comes across as jarring and overly argumentative. I really dislike the rhetorical positioning of "I disagree", because implicit in that statement is that the one saying disagree is disagreeing with the general thrust of the message, and not just a small portion thereof. I think given the general context of how shyte the YouTube search results are (I'm using YouTube+ to skip the ads, and the results seem a lot worse when I'm signed out), a reasonable person would readily deduce that the first post is directed to the more seedy side of YouTube, and even @Saab2000 recognizes that "there's a lot of junk on YT" (his own words).

So, a plea to the forum at large (and a reminder to myself), please use more care in your posts.

As for myself, I'd have never been able to swap the filters in my car without videos on youtube. The alternative would be paying someone $100 in labor charges.

Reducing U-Tube viewing is a positive social good.

I disagree. YouTube is great for content that has no audience on other platforms. I watch a lot of content that’s very specific and of narrow interest. I’m watching a lot of videos on the evolution of EV charging and the EV space in general. It’s a subject that interests me but I’m a very narrow audience. Without a platform like YT this content doesn’t get made. Same for other tech reviews or science content I enjoy.

I’m a big consumer of YouTube content. The ads suck, but it’s otherwise a free service so I guess that’s how they make their money and I could opt into an option that is ad-free.

Obviously there’s a lot of junk on YT but some good cycling stuff as well. I watch Chris Horner, Lanterne Rouge, LA’s The Move occasionally, GCN, etc. These don’t exist without YT.

[echappist]

Bumping this.
And now, YouTube, in its ceaseless striving to transform itself into something utterly crap from something that was fairly cool, will no longer play videos with ad blockers enabled.
Goodbye, YouTube. Oh - and eat sh*t.

I have no sympathy for advertising companies (and youtube is merely advertising presented in another manner), but one can get rid of all the ads by paying youtube.

At its core, the capitalist system is almost always quid pro quo. Youtube delivers content that is not free to host and transmit, and ads are just one of the ways to pay for it (another one being a subscription fee paid). To expect not to pay anything while still getting something in return is not a particularly solid moral ground on which to stand.

[spopepro]

Possibly. I agree that there’s some arguing past each other, but it’s tricky to be precise and not end up typing a thesis that’s gonna tl;dr. I don’t take issue with this discussion here, but I have noticed more egregious examples in other places and maybe that’s why this possibly hit a sore spot.

Specifically—YouTube is on the enshitification path because:
-seemingly randomly applied rules that de-monitize content creators with no recourse
-increasingly long, unskipable ads, now stacked two in a row and frequently interrupting video
-algorithmically promoting rage bait, age inappropriate, and dangerous conspiratorial videos to boost engagement
-enabling dmca automated takedowns with no appeal process, and a draconian strikes system that bans legit creators

All of which is now working to exploit the creators who made the platform what it is. Content quality will suffer as time goes on.

[Saab2000]

This is getting a tad meta, and yes, I'm kvetching (it's Thursday after all). But these two posts contain two things I really dislike about discourse on the internet (another way of saying things that lead to internet discourse being less than ideal). One of them being sweeping generalizations in the first post, and the other being blanket statements such as "I disagree" or "not true".

The first post could have easily been tailored toward the more seedy part of U-Tube, whether those might be conspiracy theories being spewed, "influencers" peddling their worthless at best (and predatory at worst) wares, or videos whose only draw are scantily clothed women, the latter having a tendency to creep far up search results for many queries. When I want to see if there are videos of Puck Pieterse hopping barriers, somehow the first result under the "People also Watched" section falls into that third category, with no relevance to cyclocross. Afterwards, there are CX race footages, but that one video just somehow had to make its way really far up the results. Fortunately, the one video I did want to see (showing Pieterse hopping up a natural staircase of tree roots, and IIRC, filmed by @jstonebarger) is the top result.

Having said that, while the second post is logically sound (in the sense that negation is valid even if only a small subset is being contradicted), "I disagree" just comes across as jarring and overly argumentative. I really dislike the rhetorical positioning of "I disagree", because implicit in that statement is that the one saying disagree is disagreeing with the general thrust of the message, and not just a small portion thereof. I think given the general context of how shyte the YouTube search results are (I'm using YouTube+ to skip the ads, and the results seem a lot worse when I'm signed out), a reasonable person would readily deduce that the first post is directed to the more seedy side of YouTube, and even @Saab2000 recognizes that "there's a lot of junk on YT" (his own words).

So, a plea to the forum at large (and a reminder to myself), please use more care in your posts.

As for myself, I'd have never been able to swap the filters in my car without videos on youtube. The alternative would be paying someone $100 in labor charges.

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t mean to sound harsh. My intent wasn’t mean spirited or rude so if it came across as such I apologize.

[sk_tle]

but one can get rid of all the ads by paying youtube.

I would gladly pay for youtube if it meant I had a chance that my usage was not tracked and subject of more ad targetting everywhere.

I will continue to use youtube adless for now and am contemplating the idea to pay for a nebula TV subscription in the hope that more producer switch to this platform because I'd like to give out money to those interesting producers.

[sk_tle]

I understand that there might be some methods of preventing these ads, but from a quick scan those solutions appear to be above and beyond my computer-touching abilities.

You don't need much computer skills to browse youtube from an invidious instance, using the freetube player on your desktop/laptop or with the newpipe video player on your smartphone.

[echappist]

Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t mean to sound harsh. My intent wasn’t mean spirited or rude so if it came across as such I apologize.

No need to apologize. Sometimes I need to apply the same reminders to myself.

[j44ke]

Some of the Japanese content creators have started a monthly subscription integrated into their YouTube “channel” ranging from $1.99/month to $7.99/month (could be other amounts - this range is what I’ve seen so far.) I haven’t seen any of the US or European creators doing the same, so perhaps it is an agreement with regulators in Japan that changed policy there to allow this form of subsidy. I’ve only signed up for one, but in that case the ads disappeared after I bought the membership. I don’t plan on making that a habit though.

Most of the US/EU providers piggy-back a Patreon membership onto their YouTube content which allows members more frequent updates/videos and access to online presence of the creators and other things. That’s a bit too weird for me somehow. I don’t want to own a piece of these people or finance their new bedroom linens, just help them use the multitudes to multiply and monetize.

I know the drain on the people doing these videos is pretty substantial. Mental health is a big topic of conversation among content creators. So I don’t begrudge them the right to monetize their content. If you have 100,000 subscribers on YouTube and 15,000 buy a $1.99/month membership, then that’s not too bad (even if you only get 50% of that monthly fee somehow.) I don’t know if that YouTube-integrated membership is available to all regions.

I’ve repaired all the major appliances in our apartment with help from YouTube videos. That’s easily saved me several thousand dollars and possibly even saved having to replace our stove because no one could figure out how to get XYZ part for the repair - except for one YouTube guy. I sent him money.