It is now in a grid layout and I can’t switch it to the list view. Worse, some videos are now out of order chronologically i.e. a video from 4 hours ago appears before one from 3 hours ago.

Feels like part of the continued march towards algorithmization of every last major internet service. The ultimate goal presumably being to make it easier and easier to censor things, Facebook style.

Presumably the channel RSS feeds will continue to work…

Unfortunately video hosting is one of those services that costs a lot to run so it isn’t easy to replace.

  • mickey [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    18 days ago

    Feels like part of the continued march towards algorithmization of every last major internet service. The ultimate goal presumably being to make it easier and easier to censor things, Facebook style.

    I think the removing of dates videos were published was the Rubicon moment in this. It serves the general trend of enshittification in terms of forcing people to eNgAgE with the platform longer, but there is so much independent news and analysis delivered on YT that the capital class doesn’t like threatening their media PR empires. They are stripping us of our very ability to orient ourselves temporally; I hate the antichrist, etc.

    • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      18 days ago

      I wish people would just run blogs (with videos if desired) on their own websites (with an RSS feed). But that is much harder to monetize. People make videos and put them on YouTube because you can make a lot more money off of video ads. But anyone not focused on monetization via video ads should probably not be relying on YouTube.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        18 days ago

        Besides monetization, there is discoverability. The algorithm handles marketing for you, attracting new viewers and reminding your past viewers that you exist. On the other hand, users have to intentionally visit blogs or sign up for emails etc.

  • Snort_Owl [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    18 days ago

    I spent 2 weeks making myself not watch YouTube and i very rapidly realised i dont care about anything on there except the occasional eddy burback video so i can stare at his moustache

  • reddit [any,they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    18 days ago

    Scumfucks. I started using the RSS feeds for every channel I follow and never looked back. Now I’ve written a little local program to check those feeds, throw new video URLs at yt-dlp, and I barely even go on the actual site any more. I’m sure they’ll take away RSS at some point though

  • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    18 days ago

    The worst part of “new” YouTube is shorts. They stick them everywhere, all up in your face, and they suck. Even with Invidious they’re hard to avoid.

    I use an extension to remove shorts, it works on Invidious and YouTube, but it works off of their thumbnails. Unfortunately, a number of shorts don’t have normal looking thumbnails, and don’t get filtered, but it works good enough for me. Not good enough for Invidious to build it in, but still, good enough.

  • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    18 days ago

    In many ways, YouTube sucks.

    They’re where video makers can make money though, so it’s where videos are posted, so we largely just have to live with them. I exclusively use Invidious though, which makes it a lot more reasonable, though far from perfect.

    YouTube also has an insane usership. Unlike a lot of social media, it’s not just young people, it’s all ages, toddlers to elderly. And with young people, basically all of them use it. More than 99.5% percent of American teens regularly use YouTube.

  • lurker_supreme [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    18 days ago

    Is video hosting really that expensive, or is it the streaming part that’s expensive? If there was an alternative where you had to download the video locally to watch it, would it still cause bandwidth issues? Even for those of us with the least possible attention span, I think waiting to download a video before you watch it is better than 3 90-second unskippable ads.

      • blobjim [he/him]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        18 days ago

        I think storage is still pretty expensive. It’s cheaper than it used to be, but hosting unlimited hours of video indefinitely is not cheap. Especially if it isn’t done by someone that owns the disks themselves (paying for cloud storage), and colocation is a pretty hurdle that I can’t imagine being done as a non-profit.

      • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        18 days ago

        For an individual video and such, it is very cheap. But YouTube operates at such a massive scale that storage makes up an enormous amount of their expenses. Unlike most companies, payroll is actually a tiny fraction compared to even just storage.

        A big part of why alternatives don’t exist is just how expensive storage is. It’s why open source video systems have barely any public instances.

        Other social media video places get around this by having short form videos, so they can store a lot of videos cheap. YouTube has a lot of really long videos, in addition to their short videos.

      • lurker_supreme [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 days ago

        Even with newer video compression? If your device just had to decompress the local video wouldn’t that help? Sorry, it’s been a while since I’ve been up to date on this stuff because looking into tech spaces is like peering into a portal to hell

        • GiorgioBoymoder [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 days ago

          my understanding is that video files are always in their compressed state, and have been since video compression has existed. i.e. it’s always the local machine that’s decoding the file. that said modern video compression is quite impressive (e.g. the change from h264 to h265), but upgrading all of YT to state of the art codecs is a significant amount of compute, and removing older files might create compatibility issues for users on older HW.

        • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          There’s just an enormous amount of content, and an enormous amount of users. Even with fancy video compression, it’s incredibly, wildly expensive. Afaik it still isn’t profitable, nowhere near profitable even with premium and all the ads, it’s basically subsidized by Google.

        • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          18 days ago

          Your device receives a stream of compressed video data and decompresses and renders it on the fly. The tech is called Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP (DASH). Small chunks are streamed at a time so the server isn’t wasting resources sending the entire video file, based on the bandwidth available, desired resolution, and so on. It’s why a YouTube video will never fully buffer, it’s just sending the next few seconds and then waiting until it needs to send more.

          Video is also really expensive. If we were still watching 360p videos it’d be fine, but as computers get more powerful and video serving becomes cheaper, we demand more. 60fps video. 4k video. VR video. And all videos must be stored forever and must start loading in a few seconds max, which means you can’t use tape to archive cheaply.

        • oscardejarjayes [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          18 days ago

          FireFox, FireFox with custom user.js, any FireFox forks, basically any Chrome forks, they all can use the much better uBlock Origin.

          The Lite version isn’t better in any way, there’s only downsides. It doesn’t have like less code or whatever for being “Lite”, the main thing is that it is severely limited on the number of websites and ad providers it can work on. It also has limitations on how adblocking works, on the places it does adblock.

          But you’re right, YouTube is a massive site, so it’s on the list, and the tech they develop for the original for YouTube works on the Lite version too.

          • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 days ago

            For sure, but luckily there’s zero difference between the two for what I’m using my laptop for. If someone had switched without me knowing I probably wouldn’t even have noticed.

    • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      it’s not expensive, people want treats in two clicks instead of dicking around with fintube/tubearchivist for couple of hours and then forgetting about it dicking every three months when something breaks

        • plinky [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          18 days ago

          i mean jellyfin with plugged-in youtube rss downloaders is not that different from nice gui, only without for you sections, adds, login to verify etc. the annoying part is, on tvs, you can’t easily have two clients for two different servers bu eh, small steps.

        • alexei_1917 [mirror/your pronouns]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          14 days ago

          That’d piss off a lot of people… but what’s more shocking for some, I’m sure, is the amount of “terminal junkies” out there who already have and very much want the rest of us to as well.


          This user is suspected of being a bear. Please report any suspawcious behaviour.

    • Owl [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 days ago

      Downloading a video locally is more bandwidth intensive than streaming (they’re the same if you watch the whole video, but if you’re streaming and quit halfway through, that’s only half the size).

      Storage is cheap if you’re some sort of curated thing like Netflix or a small service hosting just the videos for your blog. It’s phenomenally expensive if you’re doing what YouTube does and letting anyone upload as much as they want permanently.

      Bandwidth for a small thing (blog) isn’t horrible until something goes viral, then you have a choice between your site slowing to a crawl until it’s unusable (traditional hosting), suddenly going dark (cloud with a spending limit), or suddenly costing an arm and a leg (cloud).