• Agent641@lemmy.world
    80·
    1 day ago

    1. Get a job working for Google making anti-adblockers.

    2. Use your 20% time contributing to FOSS stealth adblocker and anti-anti-adblockers.

    3. ???

    4. Profit for life

  • Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de
    107·
    2 days ago

    I would accept “I work for the team that tries to detect ad blockers on YouTube, and slow down the process with bureaucracy.”

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      2 days ago

      colleague of the marketing guy that just makes up metrics to pretend to his boss and stakeholders that their work on ads makes any difference

      laudable professionals

    • HStone32@lemmy.world
      11·
      19 hours ago

      They had a good thing going. YouTube was far from unprofitable. But the skyrocketing density and plummeting quality of ads drove people to adblockers.

      I suspect though, the day will soon come when ad-space is no longer quite so valuable.

    • Johanno@feddit.org
      14·
      1 day ago

      Well then make Premium a reasonable price.

      And just don’t provide stuff for free. Nobody forces alphabet to provide youtube without account and for free.

      It was a money sink since Google created it

    • bigFab@lemmy.world
      31·
      18 hours ago

      Youtube servers are terrible. Why not focus on offering a smoother experience? Then charge what you want.

  • Thoven@lemdro.idEnglish
    458·
    2 days ago

    Cards on the table: for Google money I’d do it too. If they want to enshittify their product until the competition has a fighting chance, who am I to stop them? Sure, it’s an annoying and anticonsumer thing to do. But making a “free” product’s bad qualities harder to circumvent isn’t the ethical hill I’m going to die on.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      13·
      1 day ago

      I would take the job just to make sure we can sabotage it. And I’m not even affected by their adblocker detection; I just yt-dlp and NewPipe the videos.

    • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
      25·
      2 days ago

      But, who’s their competitor? They have none. All the other alternative have very specific community (artsy short film, science, etc)

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      171·
      2 days ago

      For Google money I’d do it too…but I wouldn’t do a very good job of it

      • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
        81·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, I don’t really get the argument here. As much as it sucks, it’s not nearly as morally reprehensible as something like weapons. If you don’t do it someone else will. It’s not something a handful of devs are gonna make a difference in by boycotting and it isn’t worth being fired over or not accepting a job over.

        • Taleya
          1·
          14 hours ago

          Last time i watched youtube unprotected it had a higher fcking ad frequency than television. And they were put in the stupidest places imaginable, making the video unwatchable. And i’m fucking genx, so i grew up way before the concept of avoiding ads.

          There’s funding your product then there’s just being a piece of shit

        • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
          111·
          1 day ago

          Advertising is absolutely morally reprehensible. It is propaganda that exists only to manipulate people into buying shit they didn’t want or need. And it turns out that mindless consumerism is destroying society and our planet.

          • infinite_ass@leminal.space
            2·
            16 hours ago

            You can’t make better people and better cattle at the same time.

            Imagine you were a billionaire. Which do you want?

          • JackbyDev@programming.devEnglish
            21·
            22 hours ago

            I never said it wasn’t morally reprehensible. Only that it’s less morally reprehensible than something like making weapons.

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    719·
    2 days ago

    This is the ideal tech worker. You may not like it, but this is what peak technology looks like.