this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
975 points (97.8% liked)

memes

10656 readers
3403 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 32 points 2 months ago (4 children)

The problem is when they start doing in stream ads, that will require something new. That said, people have been doing that with cable for a while, it'll be real interesting to see what clever stuff comes out to detect them in stream

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

Audio is stupidly easy to fingerprint and identify. It would be glorious if we used the very same dumbass technology to identify ad segments as they use to robo-copyright-claim creators for including a 11 second snippet of a radio ad that's period authentic to the historical media they're reviewing. Just take that shit and turn it right against them.

[–] psoul@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I assume something similar to sponsor block, some algorithm to identify ad segments and some user feedback to confirm. Unless I’m mistaken as to how sponsor block works?

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Sponser block works via user input

People will watch the videos, report the segments that are sponser slots, and then when people watch the video they can upvote or downvote the accuracy of the report.

In stream ads would be a hard one to tackle because YouTube would likely inject them randomly into the stream to boost engagement (readas, prevent people skipping them easily).

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

if they were randomly placed, then couldnt you have a sponsor-block type system where instead of the ad segments being marked and skipped, information about the video is externally stored somewhere (like perhaps a really low res screenshot of the video every couple seconds, or some number generated algorithmically by a frame of video), and the results should be the same for all users for the actual video part, but if the ads are placed randomly, the ad section will suddenly not match the data other users had, prompting the video to skip until it matches again (with a buffer included if they remove the ability to move forward)

[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

You don't need anything so complicated.

Take two copies of the same video, diff them and only keep the parts that match.

We can also build up a database of as signatures to automatically identify them without requiring a watermark - we already have the technology to do this for detecting intro sequences for skipping.

[–] 42Firehawk@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 months ago

In that case the ads are video only, no clicking on them, including to skip or anything else. So it would be detecting that trying to change where you are in the video doesn't change anything (and exclusively playing via your 3 second buffer)

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

This is something that would be a surprisingly good use case for machine learning. Fingerprint the ads by watching ahead in the stream, then skip that section.

Actually, I think older algorithmic methods will work. I think that’s how TiVo worked. The annoying part is you’ll have to wait a bit at the start of the video.

[–] lohky@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It'll require a new mother fucking video platform. We need to just collectively let YouTube die and move on.

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Haven't heard anything bad about Nebula

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What about it? It's directly supporting the creators

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's fine. It's just that in my financial position I can't afford that.

[–] MrQuallzin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A fair argument. I haven't subscribed yet either since we're trying to save money right now. Once we can though, it seems to be a great next step over YouTube

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, I've never checked it out, but a lot of content creators I like use it. I'd like to be able to support them with a subscription instead of using YouTube and blocking all their ads. For the moment, I can't though.

But, I do wish there were a free video platform that competed with YouTube and that wasn't controlled by a trillion dollar company. Because YouTube has no competition, they completely screw video creators when it comes to Content ID and copyright strikes. They also make the site suck for people who just want to watch videos, bombarding them with ads and so-on. The DMCA is a bad law, but what Google put into place on YouTube goes far beyond what the DMCA requires, and makes it way too easy for rich people / companies to suppress anything they don't like, while making it difficult for their users. If YouTube had a real free-videos competitor, it would push both of them to offer features that users and/or video uploaders wanted.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 2 months ago

It's pretty cheap

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] lohky@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Then drown them out with enough non-Nazis, that’s what youtube does

[–] LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org -3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[–] dch82@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago