this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
400 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

85212 readers
4066 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
400
YouTube Premium just got more expensive again: now $16 a month, or $27 for families (www.techspot.com)
submitted 1 day ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] corey931@lemmy.wtf 5 points 53 minutes ago

If you actually want to support artists, don’t. YouTube Music’s royalty payout is far from stable and transparent, not to mention low to others which is already hard to beat really. Tidal comes closest (from what I found to having functionality and paying artists a more fair rate. Qobuz is there too, Deezer pioneers detecting AI garbage that people think makes them artists now. Spotify got most features ofc but they’re unethical as shit

[–] Paranoidfactoid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The more they charge, the fewer will pay.

[–] Raiderkev@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I only ever get it when they send me an offer for 3 months for like $10 or something. Otherwise, fuck off Google, I'll watch the shitty ads.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world -3 points 51 minutes ago

Still the best 16$ you can spend on video. My only issue is that this also correlates with increased ads which are clear net negative on our society.

[–] areakode@riskeratspizza.com 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The only time I ever subscribed was when I could pay in Argentina. Came out to like $3.50 per month. Once they patched that loophole, they stopped getting my money.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 38 minutes ago

Yeah, they're worth maybe $5 a month or family. It's just a bunch of B-F rate videos and they pay anyone that's not in the B tier so little than you need to support them on patreon anyway.

[–] cy_narrator@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 hours ago

We get it for $6.5 lol cuz we from poor region

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 22 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Youtube what? Ohhh, that annoying popup I always decline. Apparently the price only matters if you buy it.

[–] godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 18 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Newpipe is free. You can donate to support if you'd like. No account required, so no tracking. Subs and history are stored locally. And with an internet condom (VPN) no IP exposure.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

How are they not getting blocked?

I've thought of mass scraping youtube for music, but it's not worth ths risk of being banned by Google for life.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 30 minutes ago (1 children)

Newpipe (and all the other ad blockers) are playing cat and mouse with them. They make some changes which screw up blockers, blockers patch and return to service pretty quickly. I couple months ago they went so far as to force javascript proof of work, I was able to setup yt-dlp with the javascript engine in like 5 minutes and keep going.

They target different things, sometimes the try to block high quality streams, sometimes it's not logged in streams, sometimes it's streams from certain ips. They keep moving the cheese, deleting this rss feed or that stream type. At some point, they'll implement actual encryption like widevine and make it actually difficult to get at the streams, at which point, we'll just screen record, commercial skip and the best of the best will end up in torrents.

Their music quality is general marginal. Research soulseek.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 19 minutes ago

Can't use soulseek fairly without opening a port; I'm exclusively on mobile internet with a VPN without port forwarding... I might pay for home wifi for one month out of the year to fill my drive...

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Who in their right mind actually pays for YouTube?

[–] TehWorld@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago
  1. I have kids and having them subjected to ads is a burden on them AND on me. I don't get begged for the latest toys, or have to watch the latest ad for whatever cream will solve my latest rash...
  2. I don't mind supporting channels that I watch. I also pay for PBS as I want to support that type of programming.
  3. I spend enough time supporting all the IT needs and maintaining my existing household's IT infrastructure for players for all of the content that I download for my spouse and kids that isn't available on YT or PBS.
[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

It was at one point a perfectly good deal. Google Play Music was an awesome app and it came with ad-free YouTube for free. The family plan lets you share with 5 family members and was a great deal. Everybody is paying for some kind of music streaming service of some kind or another.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Everybody is paying for some kind of music streaming service of some kind or another.

Count me out. I'm building a music library of my own with the help of my local library, thrift stores, and the internet. And, shit, I just got a record player, too.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

Oh I have my own selfhosted music library as well. But that doesn’t really solve the problem of music discoverability. Back in the day we had radio and MTV. These days streaming services are still a must on some level unless you’re content to just listen to the music you already have forever.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 27 minutes ago

Either my kids ask for something new, or i hit billboard charts once in a while and true up my collection.

[–] schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

I like to use the time filter and can listen in 5 languages; “oldies” in various genres, times, and places, isn't that hard to research--plenty of free internet radio out there.

Sorry to the new bands out there.

Edit: Also I find the mindset of finding the exact best music is kind of unhealthy. Building a tolerance for meh actually helps me discover things that don't immediately and instantly appeal to me, and I think that leads to more musical variety in the long run than the skip-happy attitude streaming encourages.

[–] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

I do via India Apple Account. Only pay 4 bucks for a family account including Youtube Music.

[–] isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 21 hours ago

I do. But I do it mainly to support the creators I follow. I'm not going to sign up for a bunch of patreon or channel subscriptions, but at least they can get their share of the subscription money.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I do it for the YouTube music app. I live on Brazil and here costs something like 10us for the family tier so it's not a big deal for me.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 27 minutes ago

At that price, i'd do it.

[–] sanitation@lemmy.today 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Majority of people that are not nerds

[–] Psythik@lemmy.world 3 points 14 hours ago

You don't have to be a nerd to run an APK file.Even my Baby Boomer mother can do it.

[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Or watch it from the TV app

Also also, creators get paid more per click from premium users.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] m3t00@lemmy.world 6 points 22 hours ago

amazon wanted a subscription for more video skips. mute still free

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

... people pay for youtube?

... you know you can just block the ads, right?

... and you don't need a propietary app to get youtube on a tv?

[–] Gagunga@feddit.dk 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Problem for me is that YouTube is my main source of video entertainment. I like being a part of the reason creators can get paid.

Sure I hate giving google money, but if everyone does adblock and no one donates to creators, then there will be no quality content.

Many creators i watch probably has a patreon or similar, but I watch so many different ones that yeah, yt premium is the easiest way for me to support while being ad free.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

YouTube is also my main source of video entertainment.

I am very poor, but if I wanted to help fund Youtubers, I would just donate to their patreons or ko-fis or directly purchase a channel membership to them specifically.

You being lazy about how you support creatives you like is a choice, a choice that indicates your laziness is more valuable to you than you not giving Google money, so please don't lie to me when you say you hate giving Google money, you obviously don't.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Donating to what is ostensibly dozens of creators patrons would be not only a great deal of money but also kind of untenable to manage. If an adequate amount of YouTube subscription money goes to creators then there’s nothing really wrong with that. I wouldn’t say it’s lazy at all.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No, it wouldn't, just ask them to offer lower donation amounts/tiers, if the existing tiers are too high.

This really would not be much harder than managing an RSS feed.

If an adequate amount of money goes to doing the math to divide what would be donations equally, after Google's cut of course... then you are being lazy, and are fine with giving Google money.

Would you give to a charity that had the same 'admin overhead' to 'actual money put to use' ratio as Google takes in their cut?

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

just ask them to offer lower donation amounts/tiers, if the existing tiers are too high.

Oh yes just reach out and ask your dozens of subscriptions to modify their subscription tiers just for you, I’m sure you’ll easily be able to reach them as one of their thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of subscribers.

This really would not be much harder than managing an RSS feed.

lol. lmao even.

Would you give to a charity that had the same 'admin overhead'

YouTubers are not a charity. They’re businesses using the YouTube platform for the convenience it provides them despite the overhead. I’m fully justified in utilizing the same platform to support them financially for the same reason.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Ok so you're fine with paying money to Google.

Got it, you willingly fund an immoral corporation that's on many different boycott lists of many different organizations, for many different reasons.

Sure, ok then.

I on the other hand value my moral nonhypocrisy more than you do.

Guess we just have different preferences.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

No I just think you’re just an insufferable dork with a frankly privileged amount of free time on their hands to fuck about with what amounts to little more than internet virtue signaling.

I find no value in your hollow moral grandstanding at all and I don’t think anyone else here does either.

I think it’d be better for your health to value touching grass over this nonsense you’re talking about.

load more comments
view more: next ›