People here talking about how they don't want YouTube to make a profile of their preferences, and here I am, wishing YouTube had a better profile of my preferences.
Lately, there is almost no new videos in my recommendation feed. It's mostly either the things I've already watched or new videos from the channels I'm already subscribed to. It really feels like I've exhausted the internet at some point. This can't possibly be true now, can it? :')
I think you might not be understanding the context of the argument.
Google has tons of information on you - way more than it needs, and yet it still doesn’t get recommendations as good as we expect (as you rightly point out).
So the issue is that it has tons of extra data than they need because it * doesn’t make their recommendation any better.*
Gathering data for the sake of gathering data in todays world of information privacy and hackers, leaks, etc. And that is what they are doing.
In my opinion (sample size of 1), YouTube is incredibly simplistic in its recommendations. I find it very hard to believe that they couldn’t achieve the same quality with much less info on me.
For instance, my IP changes when I travel, but I’m an American who speaks English, and yet YouTube insists in showing me local ads in different languages when I’m in foreign countries, despite having my home address (verified with my credit card no less!!!) That’s just laughable.
> For instance, my IP changes when I travel, but I’m an American who speaks English, and yet YouTube insists in showing me local ads in different languages when I’m in foreign countries, despite having my home address (verified with my credit card no less!!!) That’s just laughable.
I bet those advertisers that are wasting money on ads that you don't understand aren't laughing
For years YouTubes top hero banner purposely loaded quite a bit later than the rest of the page.
I never noticed it, until I moved to Spain for a while. Our place had slow internet, and I watched my roommates hit the ad multiple times a day on accident because it loaded right into where the search box was exactly as you’d naturally click there.
I have seen that kind of thing a few different places and I just plain decline to believe that it isn't done with knowledge.
Active items that are already clickable that change location as a page loads drive me nuts, but these particularly convenient examples add another dimension to that.
It might not be done with malice aforethought, so much as wilful ignorance; blind pursuit of metrics combined with a lack of any incentive to challenge the assumption that all clicks are intentional.
>For instance, my IP changes when I travel, but I’m an American who speaks English, and yet YouTube insists in showing me local ads in different languages when I’m in foreign countries, despite having my home address (verified with my credit card no less!!!) That’s just laughable.
Funny, my experience with YouTube is the opposite. I'm Italian, but I've emigrated a decade ago. I've tried to purge my Google account of all traces of Italian, changed my languages in my Google profile, settings, and all the places I could find. Google also has my credit card through Google Pay.
And yet they keep switching my YouTube interface to Italian at least once a week. I set it back to English every time but within days it's back.
The Italian interface is perfectly fine, mind you, but they insist on auto-translating the titles of English videos, which a) often results in barely coherent titles and b) the videos are still in English!
Mine is Firefox default "Accept-Language: en-US,en;q=0.5" yet google maps and search turned into French when I was in Luxembourg just for couple of days. Luckily they don't turn to ruscish any more when I'm in baltics.
My youtube ads are the same 2-3 casino/sports betting things over and over again. Tho I never have nor never will partake in any of those nor have I ever clicked on one, so it is just unbelievably stupid.
I’ve heard en-US is often considered as a default value and thus to be ignored when deciding user language. Set it to any other en-* value and chances are that it will override local indicators such as country IP.
That's really weird then. I'm often in Thailand and Google's never tried to change my interface language, though it does keep suggesting videos in Thai.
I think the mistake here is that google is making recommendations for the users. Google is making recommendations for google, to drive the users' attention to what benefits it most.
Bingo. I am a full-time YouTuber. I hate this reality.
Most people don’t understand the degree to which advertiser preferences dictate what they see on YouTube.
Creators are incentivized to only publish content that meets YouTube’s “advertiser-friendly guidelines.” When we publish content that is not suitable for all advertisers, YouTube doesn’t promote it, which is a death sentence for the video. YouTube claims that a video’s monetization status has no impact on discovery, but according to YouTube, all of the factors that influence whether a video is monetized directly impact video discovery. It’s smoke and mirrors.
An overwhelming majority of views on YouTube come from recommendations and suggested videos, and YouTube has little incentive to suggest or recommend content that is ‘unsuitable’ for advertisers. Because it doesn’t make them money.
To put some numbers on that, ~95% of my views come from YouTube’s suggestions and recommendations. I have millions of subscribers, but subscriber count is all-but meaningless. For any given video, subscriber notifications typically account for a negligible number of views, usually less than 5,000.
Remember when YouTube introduced the bell you have to ‘ring’ in order to receive notifications from the channels you subscribe to? That is one of many actions YouTube has taken to remove your ability to choose what you see. YouTube does this because people don’t decide what to watch based on whether or not it’s advertiser-friendly. They would rather decide for you.
I publish news. And there are highly-newsworthy stories that I haven’t covered because of the above. I hate it.
> So the issue is that it has tons of extra data than they need because it * doesn’t make their recommendation any better. ...YouTube is incredibly simplistic in its recommendations. I find it very hard to believe that they couldn’t achieve the same quality with much less info on me.
An example of YouTube insanity is their video quality settings. There is no clear manual setting (which should be labeled as such), to keep them at only a specific video resolution at all times (until adjusted by the user). Instead, users have to constantly battle with YouTube auto and resizing, to include when going to and from full screen, or make their own custom workaround.
> For instance, my IP changes when I travel... YouTube insists in showing me local ads in different languages when I’m in foreign countries...
The point is not the convenience of the user, but rather maximum data extraction from users and selling that data to 3rd parties (including governments). This is why users should not blink in finding workarounds for what Google is doing. Users should have no more concern or loyalty to Google, as they have for them, which is zero outside of how much money they can make.
The possibilities of having a truly open-source YouTube client is that users can configure their settings to exactly as they wish, without tracking and massive privacy violations.
> For instance, my IP changes when I travel, but I’m an American who speaks English, and yet YouTube insists in showing me local ads in different languages when I’m in foreign countries
I have no direct access to confirm this, but I have a theory as to why it happens. It’s a combination of greed and various ad buying semi-broken options.
1. Google shows ads which earn them the most money. “Relevance” only plays out in the mapping phase of finding advertisers who are willing to show their ad to your target group. The reducing phase is essentially just sorting by bid and selecting the top ones.
2. For many English speaking ad buys, I’ll bet there is an option that was checked to restrict which countries it’s shown too for the highest bids (maybe they have a separate campaign for RoW with a low bid, but doubtful). Advertisers have learned about ad fraud at least to some degree, so checking this box seems good to them.
3. Local advertisers in X foreign country aren’t given an option for “exclude English speakers here on holiday” and even if they did, some won’t click it and so there will still be some low bidding ad to fill the slot.
If it was about real relevancy to you and not “who will pay the most given this bucket of basic attributes”, folks like me would probably hate advertising less. The problem is it’s not and in a capitalist world I’m not sure it’ll ever change.
The same holds true for product recommendations, it’s my personal belief that on say Amazon, if a product is recommended for me, it’s because either the seller paid for the recommendation or it’s the highest margin item that fits my vagueish buying patterns. It’s not about real relevance there either, it’s “you brushed into this weird vẹn diagram overlap” and “now we can make money showing it to you.”
I think you nailed it - especially your 4th point: "If it was about real relevancy to you and not “who will pay the most given this bucket of basic attributes”, folks like me would probably hate advertising less."
>I’m an American who speaks English, and yet YouTube insists in showing me local ads
The number of travelers in foreign countries are so low compared to local population that I don't think it even makes sense for Google to optimize ads for people like that
Do you have any good sources about this? what do we know for sure Google know and track about us? I work for Google now, but speak for myself here. In my time here (not much, less than a year still) I've seen a huge focus on privacy and not storing user data. Then again, I don't work on ads. However, even before working at Google I was surprised that given my liberal sharing of information on the internet, ad targeting did not seem particularly more informed for me than "middle aged male living in Canada" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
> what do we know for sure Google know and track about us?
For start, your entire search history. After you search, Google tracks how much time you spend on those sites with AdSense. Google reads our emails to scan for flights and to add appointments to calendar. It knows the places we go because Google Maps and the videos we watch online.
Google has plenty data to make an accurate profile of you, and you can see it’s inferences on your relationship status, income, employer and so on in your Google account[1]. (IIRC it was more complete some years ago, now it’s showing less categories or there’s another link I can’t find.)
> NSA databank, with its years of collected communications, allows analysts to search that database and listen "to the calls or read the emails of everything that the NSA has stored, or look at the browsing histories or Google search terms that you've entered, and it also alerts them to any further activity that people connected to that email address or that IP address do in the future."
That they are not able to target you and others with ads worries me. I'm asking myself what are they doing with all this data they gather on people?
Regarding your point working at google, I don't think the entirety of google is evil. There have to be good people somewhere.
But some parts are just evil.
> Do you have any good sources about this? what do we know for sure Google know and track about us?
The list of Google handing tons of user data to governments or 3rd parties goes on and on. Clearly there is a lot for them to be handing over. Don't understand the surprise or confusion over what Google does.
Consider the possibility that the data isn’t the issue, and that YouTube is designed that way on purpose because that is what generates the most traffic.
Of course the argument can be made that they have the data and aren’t using it properly, but that’s not the simplest possible explanation.
The simplest is that they have the data, it’s working perfectly, and showing what people are familiar with is what generates the highest engagement, at the expense of new material.
I find 2022 YouTube profoundly boring for the same reasons you do and their recent excess of advertising is atrocious. Instead of producing something valuable enough to subscribe to in the form of product innovation, the genius MBAs at Google have decided that annoying people to death with insane cable-television-style advertising is the value driver to bank the future brand of the company on. Seems like maybe the team that was responsible for the smash hits like Google Wave and the destruction of Reader have found new positions in the company, except this time they’re joined by a 30 year television advertising veteran who really gets the internet. But I digress…
But it also seems to me that both behaviors aren’t based on bad decisions, but more likely on the viewing habits of the majority and that’s what the algo has learned. It’s an interesting concept, even if a little dark and sad.
I do hope I’m wrong and they’re just bad at dealing with data to make recommendations, but it seems the less likely scenario since Google has had virtually unlimited resources and these are the specialized type data problems they are most adept at.
I basically never rewatch videos I watched, unless I search for a specific one, yet Youtube consistently shows me tons of videos I watched, with full red bar and everything. First I thought just not paying attention to them would slowly teach the algorithm that I'm just not interested, then I thought marking each such video as "not interested" would help. I gave up and installed "YouTube: Hide Watched Videos - by Ev Haus" script into Tampermonkey to finally get rid of those, and now about 50% of my Youtube home screen is empty space.
The goal of the YouTube algorithm is not to give you great videos but keep you mildly entertained for long periods of time.
In my experience the 'suggested videos' next to the video you're watching is more than good enough to get recs.
I use newpipe and put all the videos I like in a playlist. So everytime I want new videos I just scroll through the list, click on a video and just try something from suggested videos.
Being shown great videos that are relevant to you is correlated with increased time on the platform and satisfaction which are some of the metrics YouTube cares about.
>the 'suggested videos' next to the video you're watching is more than good enough to get recs.
Which is also an algorithmic feed which optimizes for the same metrics as the home page.
Let’s say you’ve got a tire you can’t seat on a wheel. Which of these is the YouTube algorithm going to optimize for:
1) a 60 second video showing how to use wd-40 and a lighter to set the bead, or
2) a 7 minute showing how beads can be broken, things you might try, an ad, some bad ideas, a funny guy yelling, another ad, and then how to set a bead with flame
Increased time on the platform is a proxy for more ads shown. YouTube optimizes for maximizing ads, not minimizing time on the platform with short, clear, informative content.
Let's do an informal experiment. In incognito I searched "how to seat a tire on a wheel"
The first result is 2:43 then 3:14 then a shorts drawer which are sub minute videos then 5:43 then 3:29.
It turns out that YouTube is not optimizing for showing 7 minute videos.
>YouTube optimizes for maximizing ads
While they do monitor for regressions of metrics like ad revenue improvements to the algorithm aim to improve the user experience as opposed to improving revenue.
That's funny. When I do exactly the same search on Youtube (incognito, but Chrome incognito so they still know my profile), I get videos of times 2:43, 10:20, 7:49, 7:37, and 7:42.
It's funny. Roll back the time to about 2-3 years ago, YouTube's recommendation algorithm was terribly good. It's the only reason I still kept my YouTube account but every time I visit YT I feel less of a need to keep the account now.
As a mass YouTube users probably spend more time on the site if they can't find what they want; I get the impression this sort of thing happens a lot online now, string users along so you can feed them ads from your customers.
I assume that's why they made Google search results so bad, rather than send you straight where you want to go they drive you around the block to run the meter up.
I think Google's search results have declined as Google has deployed more and more ML systems to support it. Perhaps something similar has happened with YouTube.
It seems to me that Google is expecting more from ML/AI than the tech is actually able to deliver. That is, of course, hardly a problem limited to Google.
Its backfiring for them in my case. Usually if I can’t find something easy within a few seconds, I decide its not worth the trouble to go on this research assignment of a search query and just close the tab. The little bit of trivia I wanted an answer for usually isn’t that important anyhow.
Netflix is managing to do this for me on AppleTV … it’s the one thing more annoying than the stupid YouTube app requiring an entire two extra button presses to switch accounts. Every god damn time I go to switch accounts I push the “select” button on the username in the username list, then remember “oh that’s right, fuck this stupid app” and click to the side and click the button again.
Every damn time… for years… every time. It’s that counterintuitive to my brain.
But as sand in the lettuce as that is. The Netflix app completely stubbornly refusing to give me a “mark as watched” and blatantly refusing to use the AppleTV SDK features to integrate with the “up next” and TV app… I’m getting pretty close to just cancelling the subscription, because I’m sick of having to go and specifically check Netflix… they are not that special I want to go out if my way, I’m sick of them being slow to load my list I’m sick of them not fitting into my relaxation time in a smooth seamless way and most of all I’m sick of having to waste time specifically opening their app, waiting for my list to load, being reminded which stuff from my big watch list is leaving soon, seeing there’s nothing I want to watch right now from my current partially completed tv show list and then leaving the app. Im just really annoyed by paying someone to waste my time… If they didn’t have just barely enough interesting stuff I’d have dumped them, but it’s just teetering in the balance.
Why the Netflix rant? Easy answer. I can see an exit potentially in the future. YouTube is shit and pisses me off but it’s basically a monopoly on hosting video content which means everyone else who makes interesting stuff uses it and unless I want to ignore the wonderful array of diverse and interesting and intelligent cont I have managed to find on there… I have no exit in sight for all the dumb shit google cancels I don’t see them cancelling YouTube.
Which is why I force myself to be more zen about its failings… This bread sure sucks but it sure beats starvation!
Maybe I'm old school but if I want to spend time watching videos and have no suggestions (nearly always the case because I block everything) I ask myself what I want to watch and search for it. YouTube has a search box. No idea about Netflix / Prime.
To give an example. I want to watch scifi. Lately I've been spending some time browsing the last years of the Dust channel on YouTube. It turns out that the general mood of those videos is depressing so I quit after a couple of days. I searched Google and asked friends. I'm watching Missions now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missions_(TV_series)
This is a conversation that needs to be had. Or rather, it's a conversation that should have been had before YouTube/FB/etc. gained control over the world wide web.
Podcasts are, and have long been the freeiest medium. The protocol itself worked well. Hosting was cheap & simple enough (compared to video) that "free hosting" didn't give the likes of Google an angle to centralise it under their control. It was also marginal and unprofitable enough that they didn't try hard.
That said, podcast discovery always sucked. It still sucks. Blogrolls, BITD, worked well for me. Recommendation engines better or worse, are at least something. Monopoly's understand instinctively that recommendation/discovuery is the key to the kingdom. Open systems tend to see the pursuit as dirty.
In any case, discovery is like hosting. It's a ford. Control it and you control the stream. Neglect it, and be defeated.
The puritanical rejection of tracking, profiling, recommendation & discovery has and is placing a low ceiling on open media initiatives. It's ceding ground to monopolies.
We need open, consensual ways of having profiling... advertising even, perhaps.
YouTube doesn’t do recommendations very well. Instead, it’s more like a shallow decision tree. To do a soft reset, clear your watch and search history. If you want to end up in the same place as before, choose 1-3 videos from the same creators and then YouTube will fill your feed with the rest of the creators from your previous history automatically.
If you accidentally clear your history while on a remote WiFi network, and want to restore your old decisions, then connect to your usual WiFi network and videos will be heavily weighted towards your original recommendations.
YouTube recommendations are not very deep and appear to use IP address as a significant feature regardless of whether you’ve cleared your history.
I found that disabling autoplay helped with this. I regularly watch youtube while getting to sleep. It would end up autoplaying previously seen videos all night, which I guess trained it to think I loved rewatching the same videos over and over.
I go to YouTube, see a whole lot of nothing, and then I promptly leave. It's an interest desert.
I always read and hear of YouTube being lauded for its recommendations, but to me it has always been the weakest video content site and social network. It doesn't do either job particularly well, at least not in a way that engages me for long.
I like science and geopolitical content, but the typical YouTuber treatment tends to pale in comparison to stuff you'd read.
From my perspective, HBO and TikTok win long and short form video respectively, whereas Twitter, HN, and Reddit win 1:n and n:m social.
what geopolitical and science do you read/follow? I can find pretty alright science (either very high level or just papers at some point, some industry niche websites strike a better balance), but not that many geopolitical sites I feel good about
Sadly, broken fallacy. More tracking wouldn’t lead to better recommendations. I already wrote a reply to a child comment, but wanted to say same applies here. YouTube isn’t about “showing you videos endlessly”, it’s about “endlessly monetizing you watching videos”. The recommendations are geared around them primarily making more money, not around your enjoyment (which is a distant priority, just enough to keep you as a willing product to be sold).
Building on your logic… if they want to make more money, wouldn’t they then be incentivized to get you to stay with YouTube by giving you something better to watch than the competition? Or better and better videos so you prolong your current session?
There isn't really competition... there is enough monopoly here to disregard user experience to some extent. Rational firm will maximize profits so it can be assumed what they're doing here conforms to that
Lets assume for a second that I can, through the construction of some black magic 3rd party tool, recommend you the perfect videos to watch without any tracking of your profile what so ever (not really possible but lets just assume that it is for just a moment). Would you ever pay a 3rd party for that service? If your answer is: I wouldn't so it should be Youtube that provides it for free rather than a 3rd party, then you get what we have now. A standardized garbage product that works in the best interest of Youtube rather than its users. The product isnt dysfunctional due to lack of data, it is in fact perfectly functional for what Youtube is trying to make it do. They are optimizing for watch time and all their research indicate that this is the best way to maximize for that.
If you aren't willing to signal to the market that this is a problem that you would be willing to pay real $ to solve, then it will never get solved. If there was any actual demand for proper search and recommendation engines, plenty of us around here would have created 3rd party tools to solve for just that. But the reality is, in spite of how dogshit Youtube's recommendation engine is, people are just not willing to pay for a solution.
Haha. It does not work that way. You have no control over recommendations or the effectiveness of the advertising it is designed to optimise.
The problem with "tech" companies is not simply advertising. It is control. If the user cedes control of their computer to the "tech" company, then the company may use it for advertising. But the user has no control over how the company exercises its control. There are no legal limits. The use being made of the computer is ultimately for the benefit of the company, not the user.
The company decides what to show the user. Given the monpolistic nature of how these companies operate, e.g., "tech" proponents will argue YouTube has no viable alternatives, if the user is not satisfied, then it's tough apples.
The company might decide the user is a sub-optimal target for advertising. Then what. This could affect what the user is sent as "recommendations".
The issue is one of control. Under the "tech" company model of computer and internet use, the user gives away control. In return, she gets "convenience". She can be passive and consume what is chosen for her, but there is no guarantee of satisfaction. The system is designed to benefit the company.
There is a feature in youtube call profiles. You might want to try that out. For example i have work profile, kids, personal, learning profile etc. Now you make sure in each of these profiles you subscribe to those channels that are relevant enough. That way you recommendations are much better.
Is boob tube 2.0 really better than the original yet? It seemingly can't even stop showing bizarre things to children, recommending good content seems very far away. It's probably not even their business interest if you adblock.
@ivass would you kind msg me, I wanted to ask you something, but there is no connection info on your profile.
twitter.com/lucasmanual
or email on my profile.
YouTube has a hidden button labeled "New to you". I've recently discovered it, seems to do a better job of recommending new videos, compared to the home page recommendations.
As it is a new development (been seeing the same thing happen since a few months ago, and lot of people seem to have the complaint), I'd assume YouTube is exactly taking account all the data it has on its users, and are applying what they see as the best strategy for their bottom line.
I wouldn't expect more data or better profiling to bridge that gap.
I think the tracking itself is fine. The recommendation engine just has become really stale. It's hard to believe that out of all the hundreds of hours uploaded per minute (or whatever) there are only like 20 videos per week that I might be interested in. I feel like the recommendations used to be more dynamic.
I do not think there is a correlation between the amount of tracking and the quality of recommendations.
Your assumption is that it is in Google's interest to show you stuff that interests you. That is wrong. They just want to maximize the time you spend on their platform. These two are not necessarily the same.
Yeah I agree their recommendation algorithm needs some serious work. I have the same issues as you - especially that it keeps recommending videos again and again and I have clearly seen the thumbnail and not clicked it but it never gets the message unless you tediously manually hide the video.
There is a lot of effort that goes into gaming the algo. Either that or YouTube's devs are completely incompetent. Either would explain why watching Stewart Lee videos gets me Jordan Peterson recommendations, but I tend toward the former rather than the latter.
YouTube's recommendations aren't based on what you want to see the most, they're based on what will earn the most money through engagement.
You're going to see recommendations for monetized channels, channels that have long ads on them, and channels that you are likely to comment/like/subscribe.
It has very little to do with discerning your tastes and more to do with extracting value out of your time spent in the app.
Not really - if I hated a video or wanted to gouge out my eyeballs after seeing it, I am likely to "dislike" it or comment with an angry rant. That's also engagement and that's what social media wants, not stuff I enjoy, stuff I engage with.
I love Freetube, and try to contribute to people directly if I'm going to use Freetube.
It'll truly become killer when I can save multiple playlists, like I can on Newpipe. Sadly right now you're stuck with one playlist of "Favourites", and then copy-pasting a playlist link from YouTube to queue things up.
I am looking for a Youtube Client or an API that takes me back to that time where you had an opportunity to go to the crazy side of Youtube. No, I am not looking for gore or conspiracy stuff - But you get the point.
You start looking at a video from vSauce and then some videos later you are seeing how zebras communicate and what we can learn from it (just an example)
Closest I have seen is an extension that adds an random button but I feel that also lacks what I feel I have been looking for.
Going through screenshots of this client, I couldnt find it (or maybe not listed on the page). Anyone has anything similar they have been using?
There was a website which would only display videos with close to zero views. It is endlessly fascinating what stuff tou get to see there. Stuff that you wouldn't be able to find on youtube if you actively searched for using their search bar.
I've been using FreeTube for quite a while now. It's great for subscribing to channels that you don't necessarily want to infect your regular YouTube feed and recommendations.
Why not just RSS? Don't get me wrong, I hate Google's monopoly as much as anyone else, but in this specific case I don't see the benefit of using some app for the subscriptions, vs rss
How is this any different than running youtube in a Firefox container? I feel like it's a lot of reinventing the wheel if you have to do things like Sponsorblock, Adblock, etc. all over again instead of just relying on your current browser setup.
You can route all traffic through community invidious instances so Google can not even track what content is consumed by your IP.
It also automatically skips all ads, even sponsor segments in videos.
You also avoid needing to have a Google account to keep up with subscriptions, and you avoid content suppression as the sponsor-prioritized advertiser-friendly algorithms are turned off.
> so Google can not even track what content is consumed by your IP.
"Google uses IPs to track you" has been theorized since 2010 or maybe even before, but I've never seen any study or evidence that it actually does so. So, so much of the internet is built on NAT, shared IP space, and short-lived IP addresses that it really doesn't seem like there is any ROI in having engineers keep their IP correlation tech in service and tracking its efficacy.
IP addresses are frequently kept and stored to show users their active sessions. Are you sincerely doubting that a company like Google doesn't or can't use this information in other ways that support their core business? You don't have to call it "tracking", but I can't think of a better name.
What is a scenario where this actually happens, though?
Imagine two people live in the same residence. One is extremely privacy conscious, doesn’t even have a Google account, and the other doesn’t even run an ad blocker. Both have the same phones on the same OS version, and for sake of argument, both are on the same ipv4.
Does this mean that, if the privacy conscious person opens a private browsing session on their phone and visits some websites, they start getting ads their roommate should be getting? At what point would Google know “this is the same person, show their targeted ads”?
Lookup pantopoclick. Surveillance capitalism companies are very good at uniquely identifying individual users based on a combination of unique device metadata, geography, networks, etc.
Tor Browser in Whonix in a Qubes VM is recommended when you need reasonable privacy while interacting with services purpose built to track users.
Sounds like an extension that could proxy traffic by website would solve your problem? I don't know why you can't create a google account just for yt so your subscriptions are contained to the firefox yt container.
YouTube would still need my credit card details to disable ads, thus uniquely identifying all my viewing habits to me so they can adjust my feed and recommendations to the liking of their partners.
Also I do not use proprietary operating systems so I would be stuck using a webapp on my TV which is pretty awful UX.
Hard pass.
YouTube forces users to choose between privacy and supporting creators. I will not give up privacy, so it is up to creators to upload to privacy respecting platforms if they want my money.
I use Musi on iOS. Ability to play in the background, save playlists locally, no YouTube ads (just ads on screen in the app while music plays in the background, for non-paid versions), and no link to your YouTube account.
I see that in the app privacy report, but it doesn’t ask for location permission. Not really sure what to think. Perhaps it’s just tracking/logging your IP’s geo location and that alone is enough to require disclosure?
Can it limit video search to only the channels in my subscription list?
Youtube seems to have had this feature at one point but it was removed. The only option is to search each channel specifically (a tedious task if you hundreds of channel subscriptions).
If you can provide this incredibly useful but imposible-to-do-manually functionality (search all subscriptions), you'll have a UVP that will make people like me immediately switch.
Thought about that concept some time ago, glad to see someone else has made it!
I'd love to have plugins for various video services in there, to use the same client for other video services (such as Rumble).
This concept could also be used for creating a Twitter client, where it would follow people by scraping their feeds, support alternative platforms like Gettr, and send nothing but the bare minimum to the server.
While I applaud this endeavor, I don't watch YouTube on a computer that much. It's mainly via my TV...either on streaming box like AppleTV or others. I have this nice big 4K, 65" TV that can show those 4K YouTube videos in all their glory from the comfort of my couch.
I've also carefully cultivated my YouTube watching habits that it shows exactly what I want to see. No toxic or political things get through. I watch positive, uplifting, informative channels and creators.
I have had a love-hate relationship with YouTube for a long time. On the one hand, many channels put out great content that I want to watch. But the recommended videos feature is exceptional at hooking into my reptilian brain and getting me to waste a lot of time on junk that I later regret as a big waste of time.
I looked into a lot of alternative clients, including FreeTube, in an attempt to solve this. I use Tube Archivist[1], an open-source project that allows you to subscribe to and auto-download YouTube channels and playlists or download individual videos and watch them in a minimal web interface. It works fine on iOS as long as you set it up to download in an iOS-compatible format. I currently have it running in a Docker container on my Synology NAS.
Darnit, I already wrote the rest of the comment below before noticing the "iOS" part of your comment. These are all Firefox add-ons for the desktop. Still, I'll post them in case they're useful to anyone else.
I use the unhook add-on for that, it removes all recommended videos:
youtube-audio lets you disable the video-feed. Nice when you're using it to listen to what are basically podcasts and you don't want to waste bandwidth:
I think as developers we have to be careful that we don't overstep logical boundaries. Youtube provides a free service that hosts immense volumes of video and creates an ecosystem allowing creators to earn a living. It's selfish to use the services of YouTube while removing their main source of revenue. If you have a problem with YouTube's tracking, simply don't use it
This arguments stands in a fully rational market with fair competition guaranteed by a controlling entity.
Youtube doesn't have any competition at its scale, not using it isn't a rational choice. Even school assignments will have YouTube links to watch. I think we're at the point where your statement sounds like a "if you don't like the Standard Oil company just don't buy their oil" rehash.
A controlling entity would not guarantee fairness. Currently the way to compete is to stand up your own equivalent YouTube, possibly saving yourself a lot of money by using YouTube's open sourced codecs.
If there were a controlling entity you'd have to stand up your own equivalent YouTube, and a load of government people to wine and dine.
TBF nothing would guarantee fairness, the very notion of “free market” is pretty much an idealistic vision that only exists in very small niches from time to time. As long as you can game the system, there’s no reason not to do so from the start.
The current way to compete against YouTube is to finance a cloud provider to rise at that scale or build your own data centers which will land you somewhere in the top owning entities in the world. Then you need to lure creators and pay them the same or more than Youtube, and you might be seeing users and advertisers finally coming to your platform in significant numbers. Which also means you’ll enter into talks with content rights providers, pass contracts, and build an army of lawyers to deal with the whole world (including as you say, wining and dining the biggest entities that you need to stay in at least a neutral position toward your growth)
Saving money on open sourced codecs is probably not your main concern.
The alternative being to start your service small and grow organically, but in a country where YouTube isn’t available (fun thinking time: where could that be ?)
The problem here is "network effect" leverage on society.
When you choose not to use Youtube, you are choosing to not be a part of a large part of society. This is isolating. Whether that isolation matters to the individual in question is highly variable.
You might be able to easily forego it. But a kid - ostensibly uninformed, not able to reason well enough and "not able to consent" - who's teacher sets an assignment to write about a youtube video has an overwhelming influence to "simply do it".
Should large parts of society including institutions know better and do better? Sure. But in practice they don't.
Today I think it's morally acceptable to circumvent tracking, advertising, etc. for behemoths like YouTube, Google, etc. They are simply too powerful, and have too much mindshare. There's nothing close to YouTube in terms of ubiquity. I don't have any sympathy for a monopoly, and I hope that YouTube's days are numbered so that a more open alternative like PeerTube can take its place.
My only real concern is channel owners. I want them to be able to be reasonably compensated for their work today.
> I wonder if it's possible to spoof viewing of the ads for the sake of channel owners without reducing privacy or being dusturbed by ads...
I wonder if this is a bit morally worse.
Not viewing the ads screws over Google. Faking the ad view costs the company running the ad money. A lot of smaller companies advertise on YouTube... but they often use pretty standard gross techniques like flat-out lying, deceiving, or playing to human psychology. It can be useful to dissect ads to understand how gross and manipulative they are.
YouTube provides many ways to access its content and clients such as this one utilize some of the lesser used methods to access the videos. But after all, YouTube allows this to happen and they are probably well aware of how their API is used. My guess is that people using alternative clients are a drop in the ocean and their impact on ads is completely negligible. You'll know this is no longer the case when YouTube cracks down on alternative clients.
If there was a pay to anonymously support Youtube creators directly with micropayments using only open source privacy respecting software like LBRY does, I would use it.
Sadly YouTube has monopolized a lot of content, has mandatory tracking, and also censors and suppresses things and uses algorithms to put people in maximally profitable filter bubbles regardless of mental health.
Ideally more creators will realize they can put censorship-free tracking-free content on alternative services that give them direct profits.
Until then I use Freetube and Invidious exclusively to opt out of tracking nonsense and avoid wasting my valuable time watching ads.
We should all starve adtech companies of revenue so creators are incentivized to learn how to monetize in a way that respects users rights and privacy.
You can pay for ad free YouTube by paying for YouTube Premium. No annoying micropayments. All the content with none of the ads.
It does not satisfy your anonymous requirement but very little does. Most content creators appreciate (directly or indirectly) the features a non anonymous platform provides.
YouTube premium requires I have a Google account, and consent to Google ToS which includes them tracking my behavior and using it to sell changes in my behavior as a service to the highest bidder.
Youtube Premium is not acceptable. I can use cash to buy a book or a movie at a store and not have to reveal anything about myself in the process. No targeting, no having my personal data and behavior collected in centralized systems and sold forever.
The only acceptable model I have seen is what LBRY does, where I can have an anonymous account and top up a wallet of tokens which are used to support creators with microtransactions. No tracking, no ads, but creators get paid.
How do you think creators gain a following in a world without a recommendation system? I can assure you only maybe a dozen of the (english) creators in the top 1000 are actually popular from word-of-mouth, with the rest entirely dependent on the recommendation system for their entire channel.
I think you misunderstand what YouTube is. YouTube's primary product IS its recommendation system. Other platforms will happily host video files for you for a marginal cost, but nobody goes to them because they won't see videos that appeal to them specifically when they visit the site's homepage.
I would counter that by asking how someone who is not blessed by the almighty advertizer-friendly algorithm can ever be seen. I suggest that the internet is healthiest when anyone has a real chance of gaining a following because they organically went viral or were upvoted by users like frequently happens on mastodon or even hackernews... even if the content is not advertiser friendly.
I understand what YouTube is quite well. The product is providing the most addictive advertiser friendly content possible that ignores all mental health studies. The product is cigarettes and like cigarettes, their use will only be reduced when enough people are educated on the harms and reject the second hand smoke in our public places.
Humans are capable of simply searching for things and subscribing to things like RSS. RSS was peak internet and ActivityPub is the next generation of this. We can go back to that, while maybe adding unbiased, open source, and provably fair user voted topical discovery engines.
https://odysee.com/ is getting close with an open source system with community voted content discovery and creator support via microtransaction tips. You do not need to be advertiser friendly to succeed there, and we all get the same view of the world.
no adblock blocks in-content ads, and if we are talking technicalities and theory anyway, surely it violates the tos. I'm not sure what this suggestion even meant to accomplish now that I think about it.
If I could pay creators directly and anonymously with only money and not my data and viewing habits and agreeing to let random third parties try to manipulate me, I would.
For now the only creators I can support with privacy are on LBRY.
"If the grocery store allowed me to pay via gold bullion, I would pay rather than shoplift."
I'm sympathetic to "I would pay for this if I could" argumentation when it comes to digital goods. But at some point the conditions you're setting become so unreasonable that nobody can reasonably fulfill them, and it becomes clear you're only doing it to get free stuff and stiff the creators.
You don't want to see ads? YT already gives you that option. You don't want YT data to be used for ad targeting? YT already gives you that option. But you additionally want to pay in gold bullion and only to the farmer rather than the grocery store that actually provided you the service. It's not very reasonable, is it?
You talk as though a refusal to compromise privacy is unreasonable. We all need privacy to protect ourselves and each other.
What happens when your searches for a medical condition are sold to your insurance company? Or when your political searches are used to inform new gerrymandering lines? Or when an anti-choice state gives Google a warrant demanding the identity of everyone who has made searches for abortion information? What about someone in China or Russia searching for content that casts their government in a negative light?
Laws change and politicians change. History has taught us over and over that centralized personal data will always eventually end up in the hands of those who will weaponize it.
Those of us with influence in technology must demand privacy. Privacy is not negotiable. Content hosts will either offer privacy or continue to see tool after tool emerge to make it easy for people to circumvent their surveillance capitalism models.
LBRY/Odysee has already proven it is totally possible to support video creators online without with anonymous microtransactions.
I have hope more creators sick of ads and censorship will mirror their content to privacy preserving systems that allow direct monetization.
Sure, it'd be extremely reasonable for you to not compromise your privacy, and only view content from creators that allow you to pay with your favorite cryptocurrency. But I thought that wasn't your stance; instead you will view the content anyway, but just make sure the creators are not compensated.
That's not a very principled defense of privacy, is it? It's just taking stuff for free because you can.
(If your real concern really is with search / watch history, those can be disabled. But two posts ago your real concern was with ad targeting, until I mentioned that it can be disabled. This makes your objections appear like excuses rather than the actual root cause.)
Most content in the world is provided exclusively on privacy-hostile platforms.
We either suggest people remove themselves from modern culture entirely, or we suggest they use tools that let them continue to partake in culture while rejecting harmful surveillance capitalism models.
In both cases the surveillance capitalists do not get any data or money, but the latter case at least privacy concerned citizens see the content, are still a part of society, and can buy merch or offer anonymous tips to creators directly in the instances they are given the chance via conventions, or anonymous tip-jar donation systems.
I choose the option better for users and creators. The surveillance capitalists get starved of revinue but if it hurts them enough they will be forced to change models just like the music industry did.
People pirated music to avoid DRM but still became fans and bought concert tickets.
Incorrect. I have premium and I still get all kinds of ads, in the content itself, and of course premium means a login which means not anonymous and absolutely "personalized" content.
If the content itself includes paid promotion then (a) it’s not individualized, and (b) the platform you view it on (YouTube, FreeTube, Blu-ray, or VHS) doesn’t matter…
…so I don’t think paid promotions from the content creators themselves are relevant to the discussion? Your only option is manually skipping the promotional content which is usually really trivial to do.
I have YouTube Premium and don’t see any ads by Google/YouTube. I’m not a heavy YouTube viewer though so it’s possible I’m missing something.
Edit: just discovered sponsorblock and wooow am I impressed at the lengths some folks will go to skip ads. TIL
Sponsorblock is great, it really makes some videos watchable.
Though in general if there is a lot of sponsorship in videos it usually means the content itself is also really mediocre and spammy so I don't tend to watch those anyway. The people who really have a lot of technical knowledge don't monetise it very much because they don't have to. Being an expert in their field already nets them more than enough money.
I watch very little youtube anyway, as I dislike the video format and prefer written content. But when I do need to because what I'm looking for isn't available elsewhere, sponsorblock is a great help.
This sounds plausible enough until you examine it and realize you're turning viewing ads into some kind of moral duty.
"Have you witnessed the requisite quantity of behavior-modifying media today, Citizen? Remember, we all have to do our part. I see you only internalized five minutes' worth yesterday. This is below target. Your beliefs and desires have not been sufficiently altered to meet corporate goals. We require greater acquiescence."
If a company wants to paywall something then they can do that. Maybe I'll pay for it. Advertising shits in your head. I don't accept the modification of my mind as an acceptable form of payment.
"So don't use it"
No. What are you going to do about it? Tell me I'm immoral?
What is immoral is people being told to either give up all privacy or stop using the internet.
A true third choice does not exist, so we are left with no choice but to create one. Strip the ads and remove the trackers until alternatives like anonymous micro-transactions are implemented.
This needs to go down like DRM. When enough people voted no to DRM by obtaining music via alternative channels, music sales portals started dropped DRM letting people have unrestricted copies of what they paid for.
> It's selfish to use the services of YouTube while removing their main source of revenue.
The entire edifice of Capitalism, which we celebrate, is built on
selfishness. And yet you use the word here as if it were a bad
thing. I am confused :)
> If you have a problem with YouTube's tracking, simply don't use it
Why "simply" avoid a problem when with some effort you can improve it?
In this case optimising the service to make it free from ads and
tracking appears to be an improvement.
There's a difference between people being able to make money based on them doing a good job, which is Adam Smith-style selfishness, and me wanting a Porsche, so taking one from someone, which is not.
There are not two 'kinds' of selfishness. You describe a difference in
behaviours, but not in the underlying selfish motive. I remain
unconvinced of the propriety of picking and choosing whether to extol
or demean the same human condition depending on the ideology one is
trying to prop-up.
The legal system is judged based on behaviour, not the underlying motivations.
Stealing a porche is illegal, regardless of the underlying motivation. Making a good product to sell is not illegal, even if the motivation is selfish.
> and creates an ecosystem allowing creators to earn a living.
Yes, round of applause for google please, for being the inventors of sustainability in the business of art. Without all their benevolent stewardship we would all be starving for food and shelter.
You realize you're buying right into their communication strategy? This is just another instance of the age old "do dirty stuff and extract boats of money; pick a handful of lucky people; make them kings; show it off for everyone to see; now you're a good guy". Yes, i'm sure they "give away" tons, perhaps hundreds of millions or even more. The fact is that the majority of what people experience is unpredictability, dependency, unchecked and arbitrary strikes unless you're constantly running after what they consider is click-bait enough to be worth. In fact what most people experience is no money at all (or pennies) but for sure the occasional strike because you were too critical of something or because your sense of humor or parody is not to the taste of some IP lawyer. Yes "it's not google", "they just respect the law". Point is they (and their lookalikes) practically monopolized something as basic as video hosting and marginalized any non-giant alternative and are more than happy to hand over the keys to shutdown channels to anybody well-connected who is wearing a suit.
> If you have a problem with YouTube's tracking, simply don't use it
Yes, why don't people live without a smartphone, without a car, without eating industrial food, without fossil fuel? Why do these people keep funding these pesky crooked pharma companies and buying drugs? Right, maybe they don't have a choice, they don't have enough money (because you always pay, in a way or another, to get out of these things, that's what monopoly means, in practice). Sure youtube might be on the "easier to do without" part of the spectrum, but (1) this is not true for everybody (what if you want to watch some internet TV?) and (2) arguing on this is just moving the goalpost since there are services like these which you need to do everyday things. More and more people cannot work without zoom, slack, github, gmail. Yes this is stupid, but i did not choose it. Should i quit my job? Perhaps. Will it make any difference in the big picture? Not at all.
Personally my opinion is that they just privatized de-facto public infrastructure. Which is to say they managed to raise a private tax which is almost mandatory to pay in practice. Which is pure and simple extortion. It may sound radical, but there's really nothing qualitatively different. They just managed to turn this particular form into something seemingly normal.
Evading the ads and tracking is an act of self-defence. Nobody is entitled to deploy their brainwashing machines on people's minds, just because it makes them money and they happen to be the gatekeepers to the world's videos.
Plausible deniability. People will use any excuse to free themselves from accountability.
Privacy, adverts, morality, monopoly and all the hand waving is just for show. They are valid concerns but you'll hear a lot of it as a veil for "me want free stuff".
This is how I feel about all the bold circumvention of paywalls. It’s a legally fuzzy area in some cases, but to me at least, it is basically people saying, “here, let me help you steal!”
That’s rich coming from someone defending a site that existed for a decade purely on helping people to steal copyrighted content until they had a monopoly and were able to force copyright holders to license it to them.
> This is how I feel about all the bold circumvention of paywalls. It’s a legally fuzzy area in some cases, but to me at least, it is basically people saying, “here, let me help you steal!”
The problem exists because these companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want people to pay for content yet they want it to be freely available to content spiders and for it to be spread on linking sites such as this one. It's like the old wallet joke: Get someone to crouch down to pick it up and then you yank it away.
If I see a link here from e.g. the washington post, I might read it, but I will never sign up for a monthly subscription. I don't even live in America so most of their content won't interest me. So a paywall in that case is only annoying. Bypassing it will not cost them a subscription which I'd never get anyway.
When you consume ads, tracking supported content, and money-sorted content targeting, you are voting that it is okay to give anyone the ability to modify your behavior, and of others in your network and household.
People are told their only options are to consent to corporate behavior modification or be effectively ejected from modern society.
That is a bullshit choice and everyone should feel no guilt for opting to consume content anonymously. In fact many -need- to do this to protect themselves from politicians who are unfriendly to basic human rights.
They won't because they can still serve you ads regardless of you being logged in or not. Why force you to log in and give up the instant ad impression?
They can't, because one of several YouTube competitors (Dailymotion, Vimeo, DTube, Twitch, etc...) would replace them and not force logins.
YouTube is about the content creators, and people and advertisers will go, where they are at. So if there is a mass exodus of content creators and users, YouTube is pretty much finished.
I'm using a private [1] Invidious [2] instance on all platforms to gain access to Youtube content without feeding the beast more than needed. The advantage of something like Invidious is that it allows you to access subscriptions anywhere you can access the 'net instead of just on those platforms where you installed something like Freetube or Newpipe or any of the other alternative clients.
[1] private for now since my instance ended up being very popular in Japan for some reason, this being rather odd given that I live in Sweden. I'll keep it private for a few months and open it up again to see whether traffic remains within reasonable bounds.
Sure, but what is the advantage of using Freetube when you're running your own instance of Invidious? What extra functionality does it offer over what Invidious already offers? As far as I can see the advantages of hosting your own Invidious - or a similar application offering anonymous Youtube (etc.) access - outweigh those of using specific desktop/mobile applications like Freetube and Newpipe. I used to use Newpipe before I started hosting my own Invidious instance but more or less stopped using that app since then, not because there is something wrong with Newpipe but because there is no need for it any more.
Let me put it this way: This is a technology forum where sex, race and other personal life indicators are unnecessary which create some sort of conflict.
This is what I think. It could be different maybe others could explain differently.
Is there something similar built as Kodi addon? I made heavy use of its YT addon in the past, then a few years ago Google revoked their free API keys so that anyone wanting to watch YouTube videos had to login using their personal API key (which I don't have and don't plan to get) with all privacy implications.
I can watch videos on a PC, so why do I have to give my credentials to do the same on Kodi? In both early 2021 and early 2022 I spent hours in bed every day because of severe health issues and being able to watch my favorite channels would have helped a lot to kill that time.
The Kodi Youtube addon can play videos without API key. On Android you can share a Youtube URL to the Yatse remote control app and it will play on Kodi
I curate links to YouTube creators and keep them in a local html file. I visit YT only in private mode, usually through a vpn, use adblock, and never log in. I drop in on creators I haven't gone to in a wild to see what they are up to. I use recommendations only to find other creators, since the actual video recommendations are usually garbage.
What I really wish YT had was a creator recommendation system. A way to find creators with content similar to the creator of the video I'm currently watching would be much more helpful to me.
My biggest gripe with Youtube right now is how they've left channel subscription just as a long list. I have hundreds of subscriptions, and they are clearly around a few of my interests...
this is one feature i wish more 3rd party clients had, instead of just sorting channels into categories, only do new videos in playlists which is easier to manage.
They used to let you sort subscriptions into "Collections", but they removed this feature in 2015. I remember they teased they might bring it back in 2021, but I haven't seen much come of it. [1]
I tried using this on my PC but it instantly brought up a dialog when trying to use Youtube (even SmartTubeNext on my nVIDIA Shield) asking me to confirm I'm not a robot. It persisted for several hours until after I stopped using FreeTube. Any workarounds for this issue?
Are there less private clients like SmartTubeNext that uses leanback framework so you can manage playlists? Works well on chromecast but no touch interface and would be nice to having something for android. That said didn't leanback get the the axe?
Newpipe has been my go to for years. Set it as default YouTube client in android and away you go. Breaks occasionally but devs are quick to fix (usually a day or two)
i use it every day and really like it. youtube gets almost every aspect of ui and ux wrong. it's not even funny considering how central it is to multimedia content.
I don't mind Youtube making a profile of me and recommending similar things. But then again I use youtube to watch channels I'm subscribed to and maybe once a week I watch the recommended stuff.
i just find the youtube login process terrible. my browser doesn’t persist cookies, so i have to re-login every day. not problematic for most sites that use a single login form (like HN) and play nice with a password manager.
but for Youtube its:
1. go to login page.
2. enter username, hit enter.
3. enter password, hit enter.
4. at the 2FA page hunt for the “other method” option and click it.
5. select “authenticate with Google Authenticator” (i.e. OTP).
6. enter TOTP code, hit enter
7. select either “use this method in the future” or “no” — they don’t take effect because no cookies.
sure, it’s self-inflicted on behalf of me not persisting cookies. but a 7 step login process? get real.
3rd party clients like this solve that. in theory i could also whitelist youtube cookies to be specifically persisted, but figuring out how to do that would be a lot more troublesome than just using a 3rd party client.
I had the same pain until I started using Firefox containers. Now I can persist cookies for just YouTube without keeping them for any other sites or making the Google cookies available to Google when I'm browsing other sites using the non-youtube container.
My cookies dont persist.
I do steps 1, 2, and 3 - almost daily. And that, to me, is a pain.
As you say, "self-inflicted" - i can't help but think of the guy-on-the bicycle-meme.
No snark intended, but your steps 4-7 (2fa+) seem remarkably...unnecessary for youtube?
yeah, if Youtube wasn’t connected to my old gmail account which secures way too much of my life, i wouldn’t use 2FA. now that you point it out i should rather create a separate account specifically for Youtube, which wouldn’t need 2FA.
To update my own answer: You can use shortcuts to run a yt-dlp on youtube videos, which you find from an RSS feed of the youtube channel. Requires 'a-shell mini', shortcuts app, ffmpeg, and some patience.
you could probably do this over iCloud. Set your phone to download all files, run the ffmpeg script on your computer and place the files in iCloud. If you need a to open the iCloud app to force a sync, use Shortcuts to open the app at 3am or whatever.
If you're on Android, a program like Tasker could and Google Drive could likely accomplish the same results.
main reason I use it for long time is to have recommended videos disabled.
Also using libredirect addon to open youtube links in it.
Having multiple subscription is also nice feature.
Some of the developers are so unbelievably selfish and borderline communist.
I'm reading comments about installing SponsorBlock along with this FreeTube thingy. I don't understand why are some of you so anti-business here. Do you all work for free?
Save time, save bandwidth, save privacy, minimise support for Google.
I'm intentionally not addressing the advertising revenue issue as that becomes subjective very quickly, just attempting to answer your question through my lens.
It's easier and better to just make a new YouTube account or use incognito mode. The only benefit I see from FreeTube is no ads. This can be replicated by just using an adblocker.
Having watch history and other data tied to an account is more convenient since you can access it anywhere and YouTube can recommend videos for you to watch which is a killer feature that FreeTube lacks.
Nope. No ads as in no sponsor ads either. You cant replicate that with an adblocker.
Also it prevents youtube from making a profile out of what you consume.
That's not your typical adblocker. That's an extra one that you have to trust to give access to all of your website data, on top of that. Freetube uses the API, I prefer that approach to trusting random extensions that get automatic updates.
Lately, there is almost no new videos in my recommendation feed. It's mostly either the things I've already watched or new videos from the channels I'm already subscribed to. It really feels like I've exhausted the internet at some point. This can't possibly be true now, can it? :')
Where do I opt-in for more tracking?