Why would your friends that don't use ad blockers leave exactly

Because I tell them about a podcast I listened to that's not on Youtube - while you are checking out that podcast on a Podcast site you have a good chance of finding even more things to watch that are not Youtube. Or I tell them about a cool new movie on Netflix, or suggest we watch something together which is also not on Youtube, and they will have therefore left a variable percentage of that time.

As humans our time is scarce, and Nobody's natural state involves sitting on Youtube waiting for something cool.

If I give you some neat things to watch that is Not on Youtube, then your Youtube watch hours will naturally decline as you are checking out those things, instead of things that are on Youtube.

Why would your friends that don't use ad blockers leave exactly? Because of your scintillating comments?

How is Youtube Premium not reasonably priced? You get youtube + streaming music service. This confuses the heck out of me.

That's a DMCA nightmare.

Actually the DMCA has safe harbor available for system caches - 17 USC 512(b).

A distributed cache can be within the safe harbor.

Google ought to know about that one

17 USC 512(b)(1). See Parker v Google (ED Pa 2006) 422 F Supp 2d 492, 497, aff'd (3d Cir 2007) 242 Fed Appx 833, cert denied (2008) 552 US 1156 (defendant, Google, entitled to safe harbor for automatic caching of web pages for indexing purposes);

Field v Google, Inc. (D Nev 2006) 412 F Supp 2d 1106 ("cached" links to plaintiff's copyrighted works held to be fair use; defendant entitled to protection of system caching safe harbor).

For those too lazy to read the article its a perfectly understandable tactic he used. Create a bunch of accounts with bogus information, try to get elevated instances on each one, run crypto mining on them launder the crypto. As each instance gets shut off for non payment, create a new one with different bogus info. makes 100% sense how he did it, and how the caught him. Kind of dumb to try, did he really think he wasn't going to be caught once the totals got into the millions? I'm sure it was pretty easy to figure out which accounts he created at the end. His flaw was not stopping before he got caught and staying somewhere where US agencies have jurisdiction.

and getting no ad-views and no paid revenue from you is the worst-case-scenario

That is not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is I leave Youtube and take with them at least a portion of All my friends (over time) who were not bothering with Ad Blockers anyways.

This means that while me leaving saves them a tiny bit of money on network resources; It actually causes a negative network effect across their whole userbase which reduces their total number of views from people who might have considered paying for Premium or who were not even thinking of the option of Ad blockers.

Your value to a social media site is Not the amount of paid revenue from you.

It's the amount of paid revenue from you plus your network value which includes the value of $$ that can be earned off data learned from you, and the value that can be earned from other people you cause to use the site.

For example, Let's say the average revenue from a youtuber is "X", and the average network value of a youtuber is "P".

If I block ads and never pay Youtube anything, But I upload a video to Youtube that 1000 people come to Youtube to watch who would not have watched on Youtube before, then Youtube has zero paid revenue from me, but then my network value is 1000XP that day; that is potentially 10s of dollars immediately, and tens of thousands of dollars over time.

Ahh, but most people don't upload videos.. Well that is Okay as well, because if I watch Youtube, then I will inevitably end up sharing video links with some of my friends who are Not on Youtube, and referring others to Youtube, then my network value would average (number of users)*(number of referrals)*X*P -- this also adds up to quite a lot over time.

On the other hand If I stop watching Youtube altogether, then my Network value becomes negative, Because It means I will be actively discouraging friends from watching Youtube by referring them to other sources. Me No longer using Youtube will cause my Network Value to the website to become negative, and if it becomes large enough in the negative direction, then it will certainly exceed the hosting costs.

It does NOT cost much to display a video to one person, AND most people will not run effective Ad Blockers anyway, so it can be very detrimental for the site to mess with the few who do.

I would suggest that some kind of update be made to these apps so that on successful download they'll "cache" the video payload, and add an option to push it up to some kind of server or network that can be retrieved from as an alternate to retrieval from Youtube.

I mean: If Youtube's going to directly attack the apps, then start working together to make the video data itself available without using their servers.

That's to get something like freenet actually working.

First of all; Centralization is not the only thing stopping replacement of Youtube. Hosting and distributing large video files is expensive -- the large companies pay a huge dollar figure not only to host those files, but also for network capacity to send those files. Your average home user internet connection has a capped upstream, and even if the internet is decentralized, you aren't able to decentralize hosting of large video files.

The other trouble is Freenet may actually be too decentralized.. These types of systems are suited towards distributing Static information only.

It's decentral to the point publishers can't even have server-side scripts; everything has to be static, and even getting updates to your static documents distributed is trouble, if I recall correctly. You couldn't create a website like Slashdot on top of the freenet if you wanted to.

You know that definition, full of racist, msygonistic, anti-Semitic dog whistles is coopting the of the term defined by and for African Americans and other minorities when they suddenly recognized that racism, mysogyny,etc wasn't just personal interactions but systemic encoded into our laws, streets, schools and other institutions that caused the harm to be generational.

I mean , it was always terrible. In the sense that it was meant to be and is enjoyable on a disposable basis. A nickel paper back from the 50s.

I'd love to criticize all starwars fans in this post, but the reality is, that its not unique to start wars. All obsessive fandoms are terrible. Disney's not going to move on. Obsessive fandoms are their profit center.

A server emulator for the game is reported being worked on by people within that game's community.

So a fairly high chance they'll have something before long.

Right.. The chargeback period has long passed would be a claim for the courts.

Except in 2024 all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration, And Arbitrators will Not contemplate fairness to the consumer or principles of justice If it's not what the contract says, then the arbitrators are always going to end up finding in the game publisher's favor, so it is kind of a lost cause .

For free solutions there's Matrix, but you have to host it and it requires people to create an account on each instance

Those two drawbacks are significant, but Matrix is also Missing some of Discord's most important features for gamers such as Forum channels, Threads, Voice chat, Screen sharing/Game Streaming, Emoji, and Stickers.

I would say that Matrix is more of an "Upgrade" to IRC that only really handles only the real-time chat aspect, instead of a Discord alternative.

just to browse almost any channel now seems to require you to create a discord account

EH? What are you able to browse without an account? You always needed an account registered with Discord in order to Join or view anything inside a server; private or not. Only exception would be if the server itself uses a 3rd party custom app like WidgetBot to host a display of their server on a website.