> point fingers at YouTube for something they weren’t involved in
YouTube monetizes based on view count. They also send the data to the client. That client data is in anyway involved, and could be blocked, is YouTube’s design problem.
YouTube monetizes based on view count. They also send the data to the client. That client data is in anyway involved, and could be blocked, is YouTube’s design problem.
Client-side analytics must end
I'm not sure what you mean by "scrubbing".
cache-control private, max-age=11722 (~3 hours) date Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:19:15 GMT expires Thu, 18 Sep 2025 14:19:15 GMT
it once again lands in browser cache. I remember a moment when it returned no-cache.
We are back to situation where:
- google doesnt get any info if user with adblocker keeps rewinding in that ~3hour window
- player refetches if you pause for few hours and come back, or decide to rewind 3 hour video to watch again
- your SSD is hammered with gigabytes of useless browser cache writes - might be good idea for Extension overwriting those headers to no-store/max-age=0
At least BonziBuddy sang for me.
but still you could go home and have a reasonable setup, there is no escape from the current "open" interwebs
I wonder if CTR was affected. Could one of the affected channels could have detected that not adding up? I guess it was probably already blocked for privacy. Maybe I shouldn't be giving them ideas.
Interestingly, anybody can now measure what percentage of any channel's viewers run ad blockers, by using publicly available data on how much their views dropped during this period.
If the monetization weren't limited to ad-watching views, we'd probably still be trying to figure out what happened.
Turning a profit on video outside YouTube is a far more difficult undertaking.
My point: This problem is far worse when a monopoly is involved.
Especially in the scenario that (as the top level comment in this thread suggests) YouTube didn't actually make any changes and the reason the views dropped is because EasyList added an entry to their privacy filter. Should YouTube have recognized that they're in a quasi-monopoly position as you suggest, done the research to identify EasyList as the culprit behind the view metric drop, and then released a change to their client to add a new endpoint which isn't blocked by EasyList?
We don't know that the EasyList theory is what's really going on here, but if you're going to tar YouTube/Google over this ordeal, then I think you have some responsibility for suggesting how they could have done better.
In short, age estimation will restrict videos from viewers, and a creator has almost no way of knowing if a video was age-restricted or not.
Bellular has a video about the situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYLe6Yq4R4
This reminds me that I think it was the Invidious project that had a disclaimer saying they could not prevent YouTube from counting your view. Well, I guess they probably could after all, and probably did, depending on which method was used to fetch the video.
*) and conveniently for YT that out-of-band monetization channel - which they don't profit from - is the exact thing that's negatively affected by an overall drop in view counts
sponsorblock would like a word with that!
It was great business on YouTube's part to make customers feel adblocking is a dick move though.
I want ad-free viewing on any youtube client in my house, and I do not want to maintain infrastructure to allow that. The terms of the service indicate that I should pay if I want an ad-free experience, so that's what I do.
Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch, which I definitely want to happen. Ad blockers don't pay people in lieu of ads, and youtube premium does.
I give a shit, I just give more of a shit about my personal privacy and my data not being shared with hundreds of anonymous third parties through the advertising auction mechanism than I do about a creator being paid.
Give me ads without RTB and I’ll very seriously reconsider my adblock usage.
it is impossible to download something from the web without a log line entry being generated, so what privacy are you losing? Please tell me.
Firefox + Adblock/uBlock works on mobile, and desktop. If your TV blocks firefox, buy a dongle or mini-pc and use that. And way better for your privacy anyway. And a mini-pc gives you tons more capabilities like emulators etc. You literally buy those intel n100 mini-pcs for like 100 bucks.
If my 70+ years old parents can do that without my help, ... So no, need to maintain a "infrastructure" to blocks ads...
> Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch,
> Some unknown portion of my subscription fee goes towards the monetization of videos that I watch, which I definitely want to happen. Ad blockers don't pay people in lieu of ads, and youtube premium does.
You do realize that what Youtube pays out these days is so small amount, that most creators resorted to sponsoring. This is way more profitable for the youtubers involved. The add revenue is more like icing on a cake, not a main source of income.
And ironically, Youtube is one of the best paying platforms for creators. That is saying a lot.
If i remember correctly, for many its barely 1/5 of their actual income. There is a reason why you see those constant creator advertisement for whatever VPS service etc... and merch sales, ... that is where the money is.
Not taking in account the algorithm and its non promoting videos even if your subscribed, the constant DMCA issues where creators lose tons of money on false claims, ...
Only on Android. A large portion of users are not on Android.