You must log in or register to comment.
Tell me no one actually needed to be told that. Please. For my sanity.
Hold on let me Google it…
Sorry, just seven pages of ads about vacuums because I bought one six months ago and links that all go to the same regurgitated article that only vaguely mentions it 🙃
Please tell me no one thinks that evidence < anecdotes? Please, for my sanity…
The sad state of knowledge & logic aside:
There is SIGNIFICANT value to proving something we all think is true. This means action can be taken, it can be cited in argument, and is actually credible as opposed to a “feeling” that’s it’s worse.
Sure, we “know” it’s worse. I’ve experienced search results getting worse and worse for what seems like nearly 10 years now. But I have no proof of this, as such it’s an anecdote.
It’s called enshittification.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Dead on.
Well, it definitely gets the point across lol
Worse than what? Paying Atlantic for a subscription?
Oh the irony
Fair point. I don’t mean to suggest that authors don’t deserve to be paid for their work. And while the article discusses Google and Amazon’s attempts to manipulate online behavior to drive up their profits, I remember a time when paywalls were a rare exception rather than the rule while reading articles online.
deleted by creator
Yt is complaining about adblocker not being allowed. Waiting for disable unless you whitelist
That’s because there was a time when everyone had print subscriptions that were healthy, and the internet just gave them extra money for ads. When you start losing subscribers because everyone is looking at your shit online for free, you learn you need to charge for it.
Is anyone actually paying for it though?
Don’t get me wrong, actual journalists deserve a great wage. I just haven’t seen much of it worth paying for in recent years. Real journalists get locked up and it looks like the rest took that threat very seriously. I’m not going to pay money to read corporate puff pieces and controlled opposition.
The Atlantic often does long, in-depth stories and has proven to be a very reliable source. Their journalists have proven themselves in getting some great sources. Just in the last couple of weeks admissions by John Kelley and Gen Milley have proven stories The Atlantic broke 2 years ago with anonymous sources were accurate and credible.
The Atlantic is a pretty reputable source. And I think there’s a difference between subscribing to news for news reporting like the New York Times, The Guardian, etc, vs subscribing to magazine like the Atlantic, New Yorker, or New Republic that will give you more political commentary and analysis. Both have a role to play and both need subscribers. I subscribe to the Atlantic on and off (I’ve kind of rotated between the atlantic, new republic, and the nation over time). Primary subscriptions for my household are the New York Times and New Yorker. Then I have my annual membership/donations for NPR and PBS. Gotta support the news and good political commentary. It’s holiday season soon. Subscriptions make good holiday gifts.
Whether we like the Atlantic or not, I feel like at some point if we want quality journalism we need to fund it.
Regulation would be a better way to improve the quality of journalism, IMO.
I think that would be opening a pretty nasty can of worms. I don’t trust any ruling power to decide what “quality” means for the press.
Not really opening up anything. For instance, BBC news is regulated and a lot more reliable and factual than anything in the US. And the US had minimal regulations which were removed in the late 80s and others removed in the 90s. That’s why the quality of journalism in the corporate-controlled world has crumbled in my lifetime.
Or another way to put it: the ruling party DOES regulate the news in America, but the ruling party is the wealthy folks who own the news. There is almost no worse system than “funding” the news to get quality.
But do paywalls actually encourage people to pay? I would point out that NPR/PBS and The Guardian are at least partially funded by the people but still offer news for free and it seems to work.
NPR is funded by underwriters, donors, government grants, and licensing their content to affiliate stations. It’s actually really interesting to see how they’ve cobbled it together. So yeah it’s free for you and me but a lot of money is actually flowing back and forth.
Point being there are a lot of ways to fund things!
My point is they don’t have to rely on paywalls. And I don’t know about The Guardian, but NPR isn’t trying to make a profit, which is probably part of it. Anyway, I use it for a lot of my news. It’s not wholly impartial, but it tries a lot harder than most American news outlets.
I’m just saying there are a lot of ways to make it work!
I agree, but
They did it to themselves by starting out with free journalism everywhere on the net. And then it took them far too long to finally realize that ads alone weren’t going to pay the bills. If they had stuck with the magazine rack style from the get go (pay for it + ads) it wouldn’t be an issue.
If you give everything away for free for thirty years, Then make it worse, and then suddenly charge for it, you’re going to have a hard time getting money.
I pretty much agree, but I really wish we could move away from ads being literally everywhere in our lives. I’d rather them just charge a little bit more and have a better experience. It’s probably falling on deaf ears, though, because nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet.
nobody ever wants to pay for anything on the internet
To your point, maybe if what we got in return were worth a shit, people would be more willing to pay. But it gets shittier and shittier, more and more inundated with ads, worse journalism with more clickbait and AI, all for prices that go up every year to multiple times per year.
It was more reasonable when you could go to the store and pay for one newspaper or one issue of a magazine. Then if you really liked it you could subscribe. Now there’s no other option but to subscribe. Not everyone wants to be paying a bunch of separate subscription fees per month just to get decent news, and not everyone wants one hundred percent of a news outlets content. But we’re charged for it regardless. Fuck no, no one wants to pay for that.
Maybe if it were one of the only things that required a subscription. Like it used to be. But now, almost every single thing we use comes with a subscription charge and there’s usually no other way to pay for it. It’s all or nothing. And it gets totally exhausting, aggravating, and ridiculously expensive, especially when they force you to pay for a bunch of shit you don’t need, or they charge you cancellation fees on top of an extra month, or raise the monthly price without telling you, or tack on extra charges for shit that should just come with it in the first place, etc etc.
My point is, no one should defend the subscription model. If an outlet does good journalism, they’ll have donors. PBS Newshour, NPR, Democracy Now, they’re some of the best souces and they’re all nonprofit. And, what do you know, none of them have actual ads.
And shoutout to local libraries to loaning current magazine issues online. I get a Libby notification every time the New Yorker comes out. And I’m sure they’re losing a ton of money because I don’t personally pay for a subscription /s
You make good points. I do think maybe if we never went down this road of everything being ad supported, then it wouldn’t be this bad. It is the world we live in now, though, and I doubt there is any going back to what could have been
I think the real problem is enshittification. Ads are gross and annoying, but ads are sold through ad networks. The networks started by enticing sites, who built their revenue model around it.
And with news in particular, guess which ad networks both sold ads and drove most of their traffic? Facebook and Google. And then they used this power to come up with the embedded standard that let’s them show articles without using the site, and threatened them with cutting off the user stream entirely if they fought back…
Then toss in ISPs and later csps killing off local hosting, and hosting a website is no longer something you just do with your old computer in the basement…
I think it’s time to make a more decentralized Internet not run for corporate profit. It’s not going to save news sites, but the main Internet seems doomed from where we are…
I can’t stand when companies double dip. I won’t pay if I still get ads.
What if it comes with one of those cologne insert peel back samples?
Then I must’ve stolen the wrong magazine by mistake.
deleted by creator
You miss the bigger picture. The shit journalism and propaganda are still free - funded by … other means . That is why magazine have tried to be free in the internet.
You’re also operating with the wisdom of hindsight. No one knew how to handle internet publishing. We all learned together.
I’m just saying what happened. History is inherently hindsight.
Worse than it had been previously.
deleted by creator
I would get off google if I were you
I strangely feel very conflicted over Google. I have a Pixel phone which supports the security hardened GrapheneOS.
Were it not for Google allowing their phones to be so easily rooted, I’d probably be with Apple, who have their own egregious privacy invading practices.
Google also left rss feeds available on Youtube, which essentially allowed me to easily move my subscriptions to my rss feeder instead of outright subscribing. Then, thanks to Invidious, I just use an extension to reroute any time I visit that channel/video.
Grant you, Google could easily remove these features that strangely enough allow for easy migration away from their platform, and I can definitely see a future where they do just that.
It just is such a strange thing for a company to have these built in aspects to their products that literally allow you to migrate away from their platform.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting that this gives Google some sort of pass to do as they please. I haven’t used Google search regularly in a very long time. I still use their email and calendar solely because my current job team uses it as one of their main scheduling tools, but would prefer if we used something like a NextCloud instance.
In short, I have done some things to get away from Google’s suite of software and will continue to do so, but these strange loopholes, especially the interesting relationship Pixel/GrapheneOS has, make me wonder about how Google could still make certain products and remain a smaller, much more regulated, part of the Internet as a whole…
The amount of people who would do that, like you, me and possibly most of the Lemmy users, are so small that the good PR is worth it. Guaranteed, if there’s a mass exodus those options will disappear.
Chrome browser is cancer, but also this has nothing to do with Google.
Well… you gotta hand it to them, that’s a succinct summary.
12ft.io is your friend
Or disabling js. Most of you use ublock origin. Ublock has a setting to disable JavaScript and you can whitelist sites you want js
Disabling js does not bypass these article limits, idk why this is being upvoted.
On some websites it does. For example, it’s worked for me on newyorktimes
True, but that’s yet another step every time I want to read an article. Personally i just use ublock origin and add this custom filter list.
And yeah, you can also turn off JS to accomplish a lot while browsing the internet.
They’re not asking to get around it, they’re pointing out shitty practices that are common now.
People don’t want to pay, but they also don’t want to see ads. How does everyone think these companies are going to afford to operate?
Good old atlantic coming to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
God forbid you pay someone.
Yup. It definitely feels like over time the human element of the Internet has been replaced by a corporate one. The most blatant example I can think of is youtube. Nowadays it’s so obvious rigged in the favour of already established media and a select few content creators.
But we act like youtube is something more then just a place to post videos. We can build a new youtube tomorrow if people weren’t so invested in it. If you have some content on YouTube you just can’t live without fine but for everything else lets migrate… sorry, got a little preachy.
Edit: I get all you think everything’s impossible. I get it, I’m not going to be the one to make new youtube but obviously if it were to happen you are not the ones I would pitch to.
Yeah, that’s completely untrue… The reason we can’t just create a new youtube is the same reason there aren’t more ISPs. The infrastructure cost is too high.
You can’t just build a site that allows video uploads and playback, throw it on a Pi and release it to the world. You need scalability, and that costs money.
Maybe the end solution is a distributed system, but that’s not something you can easily sell to the average Joe that doesn’t give a shit about the “how” or “why” with Youtube, and simply wants to watch videos.
I’m not saying that Google isn’t the scum of the earth, but there is currently no feasible way to recreate what they’ve made/bought without an absolutely stupid amount of money.
If that’s what you really think, that’s fine.
It’s objective fact.
YouTube itself is bound to implode because of the cost of all that infrastructure… sheesh. I recently reduced my YT time to the bare minimum, after being screwed out of premium (light), and found out about Peertube. It’s pretty bare bones, but viral videos can use P2P to offload the main server, which I thought was smart and fair. So, federated YouTube can be done I think. It won’t be easy though, or cheap.
I get your heart’s in the right place. But good luck finding investors to pay for the massive infrastructure costs to back your YouTube alternative (read competitor) without a plan to extract money from someone. Not even to break even, but to turn a profit.
It would be nice if there was public money to create these alternatives - that was m way you wouldn’t have to worry about profit, just whether your solution is meeting the public need.
That said I’m with you. I try to avoid YouTube whenever I can. Wish more people would do the same
I don’t know how much it costs to run or how ads fully function on the service, but we do have Odysee. I have yet to have seen a single ad from my collection in the app outside of creators whose vid that’s also up on yt having a sponsored segment.
Edit:
Just booted up the app for the first time in a while and they have some minor things. Noticed a little bar at the top with a list of channels and scrolled down to find a featured section.
We can build a new youtube tomorrow
Unfortunately not. The cost would be astronomical. Youtube bled money like a stuck pig for a long time, and their monetization has turned out predictably awful, every time.
Don’t get me wrong, the competition would be great, or at least having the option of something… less Youtube. There’s a reason you don’t see a lot of alternatives around, though, and certainly nothing at the same kind of scale.
Yeah I’m feeling less like a participant, and more like a consumer on the “greater internet” (five big), compared to the early days when corporate presence was minimal, and not remotely slick or subtle. It was like dorky and obvious, and didn’t seem remotely like a threat.
Feeling like a consumer is a great way to put it. It especially feels more and more like it when trying to do even the most mundane tasks. Like if you own a product but need to ask a question on Google about it, first you have to scroll past the links to pages trying to sell you the product you typed in, then you might get some reddit links, 2-3 from a smaller forum, and then more links trying to sell you the product. It will say there’s thousands of results, but it’s just the same 6 links to purchase the product over and over again. So now even basic web searches are mainly for buying stuff.
And then now that Alphabet owns YouTube, the first couple results are always monetized videos… It’s brutal.
Search is broken. It’s been getting worse year over year and Google / Bing and all the various offshoots that are JUST GOOGLE AND BING (this isn’t a fucking secret, people. You can slap whatever algo you want over Google / bing and it’s still fucking Google and bing. And a jolly go duck duck fucK yourself to the lot of them).
I pay $10/month for kagi. Its worth it.
Link to kagi? Or are you going to make us Google it?
Sounds interesting. I’ll check it out. BTW I like how unhinged your comment is - you sound like a fun person who I wish I knew IRL
I can’t tell if you forgot to add a “/s” to the end of your comment or not.
I was being genuine. I appreciate their passion
I’ve been using SearX for about a week, and so far it’s pretty decent.
Anywhere there is money there are charlatans
I miss the day when you could search YouTube for something like “JFK skyclub” and actually get video of the Skyclub at JFK. Today you’ll get 15-minute videos that are 90% a guy talking about his thoughts on JFK, or Skyclub, or airlines, or whatever. If you’re really lucky, some of them may feature a few seconds of actual footage of Skyclub.
It’s not just Skyclub or travel videos. If I search for “repair mr coffee” I want to see a howto, not someone’s SEO-optimized long winded lecture about whatever coffeemakers they’re selling.
So the weird thing is you can still do this but only if YouTube thinks you’re the right audience for it. My grandfather looks up all kinds of old things on YouTube and almost always get exactly what he wants on the first hit. However if I do it it ends up more like your example. Interesting and annoying at the same time
Sounds like it would actually make sense to have a handful of different accounts, each account optimized (through search/watch history or something) for a specific type of content you want to search for.
Otherwise, 3rd-party search engines are often better than YouTubes own search for finding obscure/rare/unpopular/unlisted/demonetized videos.
Yes but it is also way bigger then it was. The amount of data that YouTube has now is just insane. I wonder when they’ll start culling old videos.
I think they already began removing old, inactive channels some time ago…
“Don’t forget to hit the bell and smash that like and subscribe button!”
I thought this was the joke
The FTC’s lawsuit against Amazon is actually insane. It’s like they have a cheat code for printing money. Google is definitely just as bad, worse even as they control much of the internet, right down to the architecture.
/c/mildlyalarming
Its time to ‘AT&T’ Alphabet/Google/YouTube.
