• Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      WARNING, OUT OF VERIFICATION CANS, an order has been shipped and charged to your credit card”

  • asudox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I like how much the design resembles YouTube’s design. I would believe it if I didn’t know about the state of mobile phones.

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    See, I have no doubt they would if they could, but i doubt such things are actually feasible.

    Like right now I just refresh the page to skip ads on my phone.

    • Deello@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember playing with a similar feature on my Galaxy S3 back in the day. Eye scrolling. The phone would scroll for you when it sensed you looking at the bottom of the screen. That was the S3. It was not perfect but very usable. My hands always felt faster so I never kept it on but it was a fun thing to play with. I’m sure the only thing stopping them is the fear of backlash. We’ll get there in time I’m sure :/

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The tech exist but enforcing that people use it is another matter. They cannot even properly paywall Picture in Picture and background play on IOS.

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s entirely feasible.

      Amazon had full head tracking, including gaze, in the Fire Phone a decade ago.

        • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s practically feasible, just not yet deemed profitable enough to do.

          Flying cars are not practically feasible.

          • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s not practically feasible because people will find ways around it. The app can require an eye tracking features to be turned on, but people will go to the browser site. If they get the people making a browser to integrate it, then people will use another browser. They’d have to block access on any mobile browser that doesn’t enforce it, and that’s a futile effort.

            At least on IOS, they tried to lock Picture in Picture and background play behind a paywall, but that only worked in the app, and both features still work for the mobile site with a bit of fussing. Just because they implement restrictions and features doesn’t mean they can actually get them to work enough that people won’t glitch around them.

      • fahfahfahfah@lemmy.billiam.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hell, phones have them built in. Your iPhone literally knows not to dim the screen if it can see that your eyes are looking at it.

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Them existing and Google being able to enforce people turn them on, and consistently blocking everyone who doesn’t, is a whole other problem that is a lot more complex.

      • FlihpFlorp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think some vr headsets have them so it’s not like you need a huge package either cus it’s 95% screen

    • saltesc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      They could.

      Default is 60s ad block. However, enabling ‘Regular User’ feature will bring this down to a more convenient 15s block so you get your content faster every time. To enable this feature, tap Allow when prompted for camera permissions.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “There will now be a short questionnaire on the ad you watched to see if you actually listened to it. If you get below 90%, we will show two minutes of ads.”

    • broken_chatbot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A Russian video hosting Rutube (which was totally dead until the govt decided to detract Russians from using YouTube, which made the platform semi-dead) actually tried to do that, having a quiz after each ad break, asking questions such as “what TV channel has been advertised in this ad?” and repeating the ad video if answered wrong

        • broken_chatbot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To be serious, nobody would use that platform even there hadn’t been any ads, because competing with YouTube is not an easy fit.

          I should probably be happy that Rutube and VK Video gain popularity as the regional alternatives to the monopolist which gets more aggressive each day… if not that popularity has just been inflated by bought-out bloggers and comics from Putin’s oligarch owned channels like TNT being directed to cease their YouTube presence, just so the government could have their own “YouTube without team Navalny”.

          but yeah, being more shitty than YouTube at delivering ads is not an easy fit, too!

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Why are you leaving? Fill out this survey and let us know what you didn’t like. Please enter your email. Before you go, 50% of YouTube Plus Ultimate!”

  • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unrelated, but seeing “2025,” my first thought was "haha that’s so far I the future. Jesus, for something that’s six months away, that’s a futuristic ass sounding date

  • abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s how this is going to happen:

    1. Someone rolls out this technology, everyone of course, fucking hates it, especially since a lot of people have Youtube videos on for background noise.
    2. Someone else uses this tech for shock value, perhaps a company putting something horrific that people can’t look away from as a misguided way to get the ad in people’s heads.
    3. These incidents lead to either the US, EU or China getting up in arms and banning the tech.
    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      While we are on the subject of using yourube for background noise… why the fuck are they serving me ads for mobile games with an obnoxious narrative? If you know I am just listening, why not just serve a normal radio type ad. I am never going to download a mobile game while using YouTube for music.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      These incidents lead to either the US, EU or China

      Excited to read the “China won’t let you look at this picture of a puppy because their country lacks freedom” Op-Eds when the technology is released.

    • MehBlah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      These incidents lead to either the US, EU or China getting up in arms and banning the tech.

      You were doing good then you completely lost any sense of realism.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good plan, I wonder how expensive it is to insert an horrible ad, that doesn’t advertise anything, just be the most horrible thing you can watch like war suicides, gore and the grossest porn. I suspect google never imagined their advertising content as an hostile vector. Probably has not even content ID running on it.

  • unalivejoy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    They won’t do this. They can’t even force you to watch every ad. Reloading the video after the first ad plays will skip the rest of the ads.

    • NutWrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yup. What YouTube doesn’t understand is that we’ve got ** other stuff to do.** I’ve got books to read, games to play, music to listen to. None of which requires YouTube.

      • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve found myself repatronizing half priced books lately. I’ve gone through five books since mid May.

        I was a voracious reader before mobile devices existed.

        I’d forgotten just how much more satisfying it is to let yourself go in a good story rather than bicker about minutiae with countless strangers all day every day.

        (Sidenote: I’ve been looking up reviews for the books I’ve read and am surprised to find indignation at sexual scenes in novels. Like, if you’ve ever read a John Irving novel in your life, and you’re surprised and offended that the next one has sex in it, you should maybe reconsider your chosen career path)

        • rwhitisissle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          surprised to find indignation at sexual scenes in novels

          To quote Ryan Letourneau, “Gen Z is Puritanpilled.” Seriously, I’ve found post-millennial generations to be extremely prudish. I think part of it has to do with the fact that as the internet evolved and became mainstream (and more profitable by catering to general audiences), the edgy or adult content became more ghetoized and quarantined over time. Used to be you’d go to reddit and there’d be porn on the front page. There’s like a 0% change of finding something NSFW on the front page there now. As such, younger people who grew up with the modern incarnation of the internet have a very different perspective on sexual content than those of us who grew up with a more “wild west” style internet where porn was just something that lived alongside the more mundane content. The side-effect of this is also that content like the John Irving novels you’re talking about are treated as if they’re grotesque for presenting sex as just another part of people’s lives - something that you’re not supposed to be shy about or ashamed of. Which is, uh…concerning, for a number of reasons. Other theories are that the world in which we live has eroded platonic relationships among young people and that they want to only see platonic friendships among characters, as that’s the vicarious experience they most desire.

    • filcuk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      When Vanced went down, and before ReVanced came out, I had stopped using YT. The ads are unbearable.
      So I know what I’d do.