Canceling internet and cable subscriptions has long been a test of patience. While signing up for service often involves just a few clicks, trying to cancel requires a phone call with retention specialists, and sometimes a lot of negotiation.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently introduced a “click-to-cancel” rule to address this issue, mandating that companies must offer an online cancellation option if they accept online sign-ups. This rule is set to take effect in about 180 days, but the industry is pushing back. The Electronic Security Association (ESA), the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB), and the National Internet and Television Association (NCTA) are collectively suing the FTC, aiming to block the rule.
We take a look at their reasons for opposing the rule in my latest video.
The industry associations filing the lawsuit represent companies that would be directly impacted by the new regulation. ESA represents companies that provide home security services, IAB represents a broad range of advertising and subscription-driven businesses, and NCTA advocates for cable giants like Comcast, Cox, and Charter along with a number of cable networks. Their stance is that click-to-cancel is overly broad and doesn’t consider consumer interests or industry realities. They argue the current system benefits consumers, though evidence suggests otherwise.
For consumers, canceling a subscription can be a headache. For instance, Comcast requires either a phone call with a “retention specialist”, a trip to a local store, or even a letter in the mail to cancel. But they offer quick and easy online options for initial orders, upgrades and add-ons.
While the industry maintains that this process is straightforward, consumers tell a different story. Many consumers, like the ones who documented their difficulties on the FTC’s docket, report lengthy hold times and repeated offers instead of straightforward cancellations. Complaints and frustrations are also quite prevelant across Reddit and other social media platforms. This difficulty isn’t exclusive to Comcast; providers like Frontier follow a similar model, offering one-click purchases and upgrades but requiring a call to cancel.
There are notable exceptions, however. YouTube TV and Starlink both allow easy online cancellation, demonstrating that such policies are indeed feasible.
The real reason they are likely opposing these measures is that it makes it easier for consumers to exercise their market power. It’s a question of competition and convenience, both of which would likely improve under the click-to-cancel model.
According to the Wall Street Journal, there are about 24,000 abandoned Redbox kiosks many still containing movies. The company, burdened with significant debt, has found that selling off the movies and scrapping the machines might actually be more expensive than doing nothing at all.
What does this mean for the future of physical media? I explore this in my latest video.
Not all of the machines are collecting dust – some individuals have been able to acquire them, mostly through deals with local junk haulers. There’s even a former Redbox software engineer who has shared backups of the vending machines’ operating systems on a subreddit, allowing people to potentially repurpose the kiosks for their own use.
Interestingly, some kiosks are still powered on and occasionally dispensing movies without charge. One individual documented this phenomenon, walking away with free movies after his credit card wasn’t charged but movies were spit out nonetheless.
Redbox’s financial troubles have also affected businesses that hosted the machines, including Walgreens, which is owed millions in unpaid commissions and operational costs. Despite these machines costing Walgreens about $184,000 a month to keep powered, many haven’t been turned off, potentially in an effort to boost their bankruptcy claim. Other chains face similar issues, as the removal of these kiosks comes with the added cost of safely disposing of their coolant systems.
The broader context here reveals that physical media sales have been in steady decline. According to the Digital Entertainment Group’s market data, sales of DVDs and Blu-rays have dropped by 25% from 2022 to 2023, and the first half of 2024 shows a continuing downward trend. Despite these numbers, there is still a glimmer of hope for physical media fans: sales of 4K Ultra HD Blu-rays have grown by 15%, driven by releases like Oppenheimer and collectible formats such as steelbooks.
This enthusiasm mirrors the rise of LaserDisc in the 1990s. While most consumers opted for the lower-quality VHS format, serious collectors flocked to LaserDisc for its superior video and audio.
The niche market for physical media may shrink, but it’s far from disappearing entirely. Even Nintendo has committed to continuing physical game releases for its new consoles, recognizing that many consumers still prefer tangible products that can be resold.
As Redbox fades, the niche market for physical media soldiers on. There’s still demand, especially from collectors and enthusiasts who value the quality and collectability that digital media just can’t offer. While the era of mass-market DVDs and Blu-rays might be ending, the story of physical media isn’t quite over yet.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has introduced a set of stringent rules aimed at curbing the spread of fake reviews and fake followers, set to take effect in October. In my latest video we dive into what the FTC claims they will now be enforcing.
These rules are intended to close the loopholes left by a recent Supreme Court decision, which limited the FTC’s ability to seek civil damages without specific regulations in place. With these new rules, the FTC aims to expand the scope of what is deemed illegal, allowing them to take civil action against violators.
One of the central elements of the new regulations is the prohibition of paid reviews. Businesses are now explicitly banned from creating or selling fake reviews or testimonials. This rule also covers the practice of paying for negative reviews, a tactic some companies have used against competitors. The FTC’s stance on this matter is clear: reviews should be authentic and based on real experiences, not monetary exchanges.
In light of these regulations, it’s worth examining the practices of some notable companies. For instance, Canon Corporation’s approach to influencer marketing raises questions about the authenticity of reviews. The company recently reached out to me, offering their V10 vlogging camera for review. However, the terms of their agreement were troubling. Canon required pre-approval of all content before publication, with the right to demand revisions. This pre-review requirement undermines the integrity of the review process, making it less about honest opinions and more about corporate approval.
Another example involves Google’s Team Pixel program, which has come under scrutiny for its recent shift in policies. Previously, the program involved sending phones to tech enthusiasts and reviewers without any obligations. However, with the release of the Pixel 9, creators were asked to agree not to feature competitor devices in their content or speak favorably about competing phones in comparison to the Pixel.
Google says that the goal of Teampixel was “is to get Pixel devices into the hands of content creators, not press and tech reviewers.” However this is just flat-out false. In my communications with the marketing company operating Teampixel they knew I was a product reviewer from day 1. Many of their communications referred to creators making reviews too.
The FTC’s new rules also target companies that set up biased review websites, where competing products receive unfavorable reviews, while the company’s own products are praised. This type of astroturfing is now explicitly banned. Moreover, businesses are no longer allowed to suppress negative reviews through intimidation or legal threats, a practice that has been reported in various industries. Additionally, if a company has a review section of their e-commerce site they cannot cherry pick positive reviews while excluding the negative ones.
I personally encountered review suppression when I tried to post a critical review on Channel Master’s website. As I noted in my review video, the player did not work as advertised with encrypted over the air content without an Internet connection. My review was never published but there are plenty of glowing ones visible on their product page. The new FTC regulations make it illegal for businesses to misrepresent the reviews on their websites, ensuring that all genuine feedback, whether positive or negative, is accounted for.
Lastly, the FTC’s crackdown extends to the purchase or sale of fake social media influence, including followers and views generated by bots or hijacked accounts. Paying for legitimate ads on social media platforms remains legal, but these platforms are now under greater pressure to ensure that the engagement they sell is genuine.
The big question now is what if any enforcement might we see from the FTC moving forward. I’ve had off the record conversations with FTC officials in the past and it was clear they lacked the resources to go after the many offenders out there. It is likely they will try to make an example out of a few big violators in the hopes that it encourages others to fall into compliance. Stay tuned!
Google has officially declared the Chromecast hardware as we once knew it to be dead, but in reality, the Chromecast hardware as we knew it was discontinued four years ago. I take a look back (and forward) at Google’s TV streaming devices in my latest video.
Chromecast was first introduced in 2013, and it was a game-changer at the time. For just $35, users could stream content from their phones to their televisions, an especially valuable feature in a time when most TVs were not smart and streaming boxes were expensive.
The Chromecast wasn’t just a device that mirrored content from a phone; it established a direct connection with streaming services, making the experience smoother and more reliable. The affordable price point and the functionality it offered made Chromecast a hit.
As the years passed, Google made several updates to Chromecast. In 2015, they redesigned the device, making it more user-friendly by turning it into a dongle, which was easier to connect to a television. They also introduced a Chromecast Audio device, which allowed users to stream audio to any speaker system. In 2016, the Chromecast Ultra was released, offering support for 4K streaming. Two years later Google released a third generation 1080p Chromecast.
Competing streamers, like Roku and Amazon’s Fire TV, fired back by releasing devices at or around the Chromecast price point. These offered a greater value proposition as they did not require a phone to use and had a full TV interface with remote controls.
In 2020, Google made a significant shift with the introduction of the Chromecast with Google TV. This device was more akin to an Android TV device than a traditional Chromecast. Like its low cost competitors, It came with a remote and an interface, eliminating the need to use a phone to control the device but still offered that as an option. While it still retained the Chromecast name, the core experience had changed, marking the end of Chromecast as it was originally known.
For Google, maintaining the infrastructure for these inexpensive devices became less viable, especially when other companies were willing to produce similar hardware. Devices like Walmart’s Onn boxes are examples of this shift, where Google incurs no overhead costs but still benefits from licensing fees. Additionally, many modern televisions now come with Google TV built-in, further reducing the need for a separate Chromecast device.
Despite the discontinuation of the original Chromecast hardware, the casting protocol itself is far from dead. Users can still cast content from their phones to various devices, including Google TV and other Android-based streaming boxes and smart TVs. This functionality remains a key part of the Android ecosystem, and it is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Google’s latest streaming device, the more premium Google TV Streamer (affiliate link), will soon be their only streaming box offering. It will offer better performance than the 2020 4k Chromecast dongle along with more storage and RAM. But it will still be outclassed by the the Nvidia Shield, which remains the gold standard for Android TV devices since its 2015 release.
In essence, while the Chromecast name may have been added to the list of Google’s discontinued products, the technology and principles behind it are still very much alive. Google’s strategy seems to be shifting towards licensing and partnering with other manufacturers rather than producing the hardware themselves.
I recently explored Netflix’s venture into the gaming industry, discovering that it offers a variety of games as part of its streaming subscription plan. I take a look at their offerings on mobile, TV and the web in my latest video.
This all started with an article in Kotaku, which looked at Netflix’s plan to add 80 new games this year to its existing library of 100. Unlike many mobile games, Netflix’s offerings do not feature ads or in-app purchases, resembling the model of Apple Arcade and Google Play Pass. Existing Netflix customers can download and play the games without any additional fees.
In their second quarter earnings call last week, Netflix said they are focusing on developing games based on their popular intellectual properties (IP), such as a previously released Stranger Things game. These games tend to be narrative-driven and less reliant on quick reflexes, making them well-suited for touch screens.
Navigating Netflix’s game offerings varies between platforms. On Android, there is a dedicated games tab, while on iPhone, games are currently on a “shelf” that is mixed in with the streaming media content. Downloading a game from the Netflix app takes the user to the phone’s app store where it will install like any other app. Users can also download the games directly from each platform’s app store too.
One impressive feature is the cross-platform cloud syncing. For instance, I started playing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Shredder’s Revenge (compensated affiliate link) on an Android phone and was able to pick up my game seamlessly on an iPhone. However, it’s important to note that if a game is removed from Netflix, the save files will not be compatible with versions of these games purchased separately.
Netflix’s TV interface for games is still developing. While mobile games cannot be downloaded on TV devices, Netflix offers TV-specific games that run within the Netflix app, controlled via a phone app. These games, such as Rocket, are simpler but still enjoyable.
In the web browser, Netflix offers the same games available on TV, which are web-based and apparently streamed from Netflix’s servers. Although these games look and play well, they currently do not support game controllers. An example is Infernax, a side-scrolling platformer reminiscent of Shovel Knight (compensated affiliate link).
Overall, Netflix’s foray into gaming is diverse and still evolving. It offers a unique blend of mobile, TV, and web-based games, making it worth exploring. If you haven’t yet tried Netflix games, it might be time to dive in and see what’s available.
As I write this post we are in the middle of the “Steam Summer Sale” where the popular gaming platform offers deep discounts on thousands of PC games. Like many gamers of a certain age I find myself buying cheap games to add to my library but never get around to actually playing them.
A recent analysis by PCGamesN highlights a staggering amount of unplayed games worth billions of dollars in users’ libraries. This got me curious about my own Steam library, and I decided to delve into this issue further. This is the subject of my latest video.
PCGamesN estimates that there are approximately $1.9 billion worth of unplayed games in publicly accessible Steam profiles. This figure only accounts for about 10% of the profiles in the Steam ID database, suggesting that the actual amount of unplayed games could be significantly higher. The variability in game prices and sales makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact value of these unplayed titles, but it’s safe to assume it’s at least several hundred millions of dollars.
Curious about my own collection, I discovered that I have around $2,000 worth of unplayed games in my Steam library, accounting for just over 50% of my overall library. Many of these games were acquired through bundles or sales, often at significantly reduced prices, so I think my actual cost is much lower. Despite having played only 48% of my games, I continue to add more to my library.
You can check out your own “pile of shame” by making your Steam profile public and searching for it on SteamIDfinder.com. You can also keep track of unplayed games inside of the Steam interface by using their filtering options as demoed in my video. You can turn your filtered search into a “dynamic collection” that will automatically update the list as you work your way through the unplayed games.
One downside of these digital libraries is a lack of true ownership. I can’t sell these unplayed games like I could with a CD or cartridge based game. What’s worse is that any issue with the account can result in losing access to all purchased content – after all you’re merely purchasing a revokable license to play the game.
Recently, the FCC made headlines with an announcement that ostensibly seemed to require an imminent increase in internet speeds for American consumers. Yet, the reality is far more nuanced and requires a deeper understanding of what broadband means in a regulatory context, and how the FCC’s declaration has no teeth in a largely unregulated marketplace.
In my latest video, we dive into why the FCC made this declaration and some of the politics driving it.
In the commissions first adopted broadband assessment since 2015, they raised the standard for what should be considered high speed internet to 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream. The previous definition was 20 megabits down and 3 megabits up.
But this report is really more about tracking the rollout of broadband infrastructure in the United States, something the FCC is mandated to do per the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Congress set a goal of getting every American connected to broadband that year, and despite billions of taxpayer dollars going to telecommunications companies over the decades, nearly 45 million people still lack access to the minimum broadband specification in their communities. Or do they?
The FCC report excluded satellite services, even though most of the areas not covered by wireline broadband are within SpaceX Starlink’s service area. Starlink’s Internet service also meets the FCC’s newly defined minimum specifications for a broadband connection. The FCC’s two Republican commissioners voted against adopting the report because of this exclusion.
In their dissenting opinions, the Republican commissioners argue that by excluding Starlink and thus making the nation’s broadband rollout appear stalled, the Democrats on the commission are laying a foundation by which they can impose heavier regulation on Internet Service providers. This is because the 1996 telecommunication law requires the FCC to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment” if the agency issues a negative report on broadband access.
And the FCC is doing just that. On a similar 3-2 vote in November, the FCC began the process of re-classifying ISPs under Title II rules. The FCC previously moved ISPs into the Title II category during the Obama administration over net neutrality concerns which was later reversed by the Trump administration.
But Title II regulation can go far deeper than just net neutrality, including regulating pricing, requiring ISPs to provide access to remote areas, and much more. The Republicans argue that the market will take care of these things and no further regulation is needed. The Democrats say that after three decades of “light touch” regulation the broadband rollout has not achieved the 1996 goal of universal access.
But is it necessary to apply Title II everywhere? I think a more balanced approach is needed. In my area we went from one provider (Comcast) to now having five with potentially more on the way – all meeting and exceeding the minimum broadband standards with no data caps. Do we need regulation here? Likely not.
But there are parts of the country that still only have one provider that may not meet the broadband standard, applies expensive data caps on service, and holds back infrastructure investments. Perhaps regulating markets like this and lifting regulations when competitors enter those markets might be a smarter approach.
And it may not be necessary for Title II to apply either. In the 1996 law, the FCC has the ability to impose price caps, remove regulatory red-tape that prevents competitors from accessing pole attachments along with other regulatory powers to encourage competition and market choice. It is not clear how much of those powers the FCC has exercised over the years.
I’m sure there will be more to come on this topic! Stay tuned.
A fellow tech creator Net Guy Reviews discovered that a few new mini PCs from Ace Magic were infected with malware that among other things can capture keystrokes from the user.
Having reviewed a few Ace Magic PCs in the past, I wanted to make sure the machines I still had in my possession were clean. Most of them were, although. I did find something concerning in a newer model that I haven’t yet reviewed.
Background on this situation and my findings are the subject of my latest video.
Following the Net Guy’s video, a cascade of reports and articles, including a detailed one from Tom’s Hardware, emerged, outlining the severity of the issue. The spyware, identified as Bladabindi and Redline, is particularly nefarious, capable of stealing passwords from browsers and wallets, logging keystrokes, and transmitting data to a command and control server.
I conducted scans using multiple tools including Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool, Hitman Pro from Sofos, and Microsoft Defender on the three Ace Magic PCs I had in my possession. My AM06Pro and Kamrui Gaming PC both tested clean.
However, the situation was different with a newer model, the AM20, which restricted my access to Windows Defender. One other issue I noted on multiple Ace Magic PCs is that although they have licensed and activated versions of Windows, they only have the user create a local account – it does attempt to connect to a Microsoft online account.
ACE Magic’s response to the crisis has been to assure that the issue has been resolved with their new stock and was limited mostly to the PCs tested by Net Guy Reviews and others.
For the tech-savvy, the solution might be straightforward: wipe the machine clean and install a fresh copy of Windows or a flavor of Linux. But for the average user, this spyware saga is a reminder of the risks inherit with purchasing cheap computers from relatively unknown overseas brands.
Just after Thanksgiving the Cox Media Group (CMG) began marketing an advertising product that they say targets consumers based on private conversations heard by smart devices. This bold claim generated a good amount of media scrutiny, with most outlets saying Cox’s claimed capabilities were exaggerated. CMG has since taken their “active listening” marketing page down.
In my latest video I demonstrate how it’s possible to listen in on private conversations without ever having to upload audio data – just transcriptions generated by on-device AI. Smartphone processors have had enough horsepower to do this since at least 2017 if not earlier.
I conducted an experiment to test these capabilities. Using a piece of software called MacWhisper, which utilizes OpenAI’s models for on-device transcription, I transcribed a conversation from my home. The software efficiently converted the audio into text, which was then uploaded and summarized using ChatGPT. The results were surprisingly accurate and detailed, capturing various topics from health concerns to shopping plans.
The resulting transcript uploaded to ChatGPT was only 3k in size – a file small enough to be transmitted in just a few seconds using a 1980’s 1200 baud modem and mere milliseconds on a modern broadband connection. If anyone was monitoring the network traffic coming out of a smart television a transmission that small would likely be dismissed as just some random telemetry.
And you don’t even need a powerful computer to transcribe text on device. Google Pixel phones since the Pixel 4 could do it and Apple has had this capability since the iPhone X’s release. Conceivably every TV, phone, tablet, smart speaker and just about any other device made in the last five years is fully capable of on-device transcription.
In a statement, CMG denied they were listening to conversations but did not deny somebody else might be:
“CMG businesses do not listen to any conversations or have access to anything beyond a third-party aggregated, anonymized and fully encrypted data set that can be used for ad placement.“
So it’s entirely possible they’re working with a third party vendor that is conducting this activity through apps running on smart devices. CMG could just be buying the “output” of this transcription and AI processing. As of this posting CMG did not respond to my follow-up question asking if they were doing just that.
Is it legal? Cox Media Group thinks so. From their now deleted marketing page:
While the Cox Media Group’s claim about their advertising product could have been exaggerated, I demonstrated that it is now entirely plausible to listen in on private conversations, transcribe the audio to text in real time on-device, and transmit back very small blobs of text that can be interpreted by AI for advertising targeting.
I’d like to believe that CMG’s claims were exaggerated but it’s entirely possible advertisers have found a new way to invade our privacy for profit.
Yes you read the headline correctly. Sony, in a Friday afternoon bad news dump, notified users that video content from Discovery will be removed from the Playstation store and any purchases will also be removed from user libraries. This is yet another reminder that in this digital world we own nothing. See more in my latest video.
Unlike physical media, where ownership is tangible and enduring, digital purchases are ephemeral, often subject to the whims of content providers and platform policies. Even when “purchasing” media, users are merely purchasing a license giving them access to the content. The fine print of Sony’s licensing agreement says they can revoke the license any time they want for any reason.
“Unless as otherwise stated in this Agreement, SCEA, at its sole discretion, may indefinitely suspend, or discontinue any and all online access to content at any time, including for maintenance service or upgrades, without prior notice or liability.”
So how can we safeguard access to our media? One method involves the direct capture of content using software like OBS. While this process is time-consuming, it offers one avenue to preserve access to shows and movies that you’ve paid for. However, this solution isn’t without its drawbacks, primarily the effort and technical know-how required. And also it may violate the Digital Milenium Copyright Act (DMCA) which prohibits the circumvention of encryption protecting the content which is required to do a direct capture.
The best option of course is to purchase physical copies of movies and TV shows, whether on DVD or Blu-ray, which will remain accessible regardless of the changing digital landscape. Physical discs often include special features and additional content, enriching the viewing experience. Unfortunately, the market for physical media is declining, and not all content is available in this format.
Movies Anywhere is another alternative that helps spread the risk across multiple platforms. This service allows digital media purchased on one platform (like Amazon) to be made accessible on other platforms too. Most Blu-Rays now come with a “digital code” option that is often redeemable through Movies Anywhere.
Vudu also has an affordable solution called “Disc to Digital” that allows US consumers to scan the back of a DVD or Blu-Ray movie and have the film added to their digital library for under $5. The film gets added to the user’s Vudu library but the film will show up on other services through Movies Anywhere. I reviewed the service a few years ago.
For those with physical media collections, tools like MakeMKV and Handbrake facilitate the creation of personal digital archives that can be used with personal media servers like Plex.
Another option is the use of streaming service recorders like PlayOn (compensated affiliate link). This tool enables the recording of content from streaming services like Netflix and Hulu, though it operates in a legal gray area and raises questions about compliance with service terms and the legality of retaining content after canceling a subscription to the service the content was recorded from.
Unfortunately this dust up with Sony and Discovery is only the tip of the iceberg. I suspect we will be hearing more stories about purchases of music, movies, TV shows and games disappearing from libraries in the coming years. And unfortunately there’s not much we can do about it given the terms of service that allow the companies to do it.
My suspicion is that YouTube is currently under scrutiny from three major stakeholders, and unfortunately, creators aren’t on that list. First, there are YouTube’s advertisers. Over the summer, a company named Adalytics released two significant studies that questioned some of Google and YouTube’s advertising practices. Although YouTube and parent company Google have denied these claims, the evidence from these studies suggests that these issues might be why revenue is getting clawed back.
One of the studies by Adalytics focused on TrueView skippable in-stream ads. These are the ads you see when you start a YouTube video, which you can choose to watch or skip. If you watch the ad, the advertiser pays. However, over the past two and a half years, YouTube has been selling these ads not just on their platform but also on other websites.
Adalytics and some industry insiders believe that many of these ads aren’t even being viewed by people. They’re running in the background on a website or sometimes not displayed to a person at all. This might be because YouTube doesn’t have as much ad inventory available for advertisers on YouTube itself, making YouTube-only placements a more expensive advertising option compared to other ad supported platforms like Hulu and Netflix.
Another factor is YouTube’s restrictions on how ads can run. Videos deemed “made for kids” can’t run certain types of ads. This reduces the available inventory. Also, YouTube is stringent about which channels can run ads. Many channels and videos are deemed “not advertiser-friendly,” further limiting ad inventory that YouTube can offer advertisers. For some reason advertisers are ok with their ads appearing on platforms like Netflix and Hulu next to content that they would not be comfortable with on YouTube.
Then there’s the issue of YouTube Shorts. These short videos are drawing viewers away from the more profitable long-form content that YouTube’s advertisers want to pay for. Creators who are able to negotiate brand deals on their own are far more motivated to make low-effort Shorts vs. longer form videos that require a greater time investment.
Another concern raised by Adalytics is about the placement of ads on “made for kids” videos. The study suggests that YouTube might be bending the rules by detecting when an adult is watching one of these videos and showing them adult-targeted ads. This was likely done in an effort to increase the amount of inventory they could sell to advertisers.
But here’s the problem: what if YouTube’s adult-detecting AI gets it wrong and a kid is the one actually watching? The Adalytics report suggests this is happening and advertisers are very unhappy. One advertiser said they’d be looking for refunds:
“Google has failed advertisers, again. There is no reasonable excuse for ads running on content intended primarily for kids other than to extort advertisers through a toddler-enabled click farm. The observations around Pmax (Preschooler Max) are damning given the hard sell Google is putting on us to trust their so-called AI black box. We’re overdue real transparency and Google needs to be made accountable – refunding us for all ads on this content and explaining themselves to the FTC.”
This is problematic because kids might still end up clicking on these ads, leading to potential legal issues. It is against the law in the United States to track the online behavior of children under the age of 13.
This in turn creates a “fruit of the poisonous tree” situation. And here’s how I think this is playing out: A kid gets served an adult ad on a “made for kids” video. They click on the ad and now an advertiser is collecting data on that individual. That account then starts viewing other ads on non-kid videos and additional data is collected and additional targeted advertising is directed at that account. But the entire account is poisoned at this point – and any ad views are likely going to be deemed invalid.
If YouTube is looking to refund advertisers for this traffic they’re going to have to follow those accounts across all of the videos they watched in an effort to make these advertisers whole. And it’s likely the creators getting hit with this are appealing to younger audiences hence the great impact. The only open question is why this seems to be hitting smaller creators more than the larger ones.
All these challenges come at a time when Google, YouTube’s parent company, is facing a lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice accusing them of being a monopoly. This is a significant case, and Google’s entire business could be at risk.
I recently spoke with Sarah Kimmel, a fellow creator who runs a channel called Family Tech. She shared her frustrations with the current situation on YouTube. Like many, she’s seen a significant drop in her revenue with zero communication from YouTube. She emphasized the need for transparency from YouTube. All she wants, like many of us, is clarity.
In conclusion, these are challenging times for creators on YouTube. Many factors are at play, and it’s crucial for YouTube to communicate and support its creator community. They
The other day I received a concerning message in my YouTube analytics. The message indicated that ads had been limited on one or more of my videos due to “invalid traffic.” The ambiguity of the message left me puzzled. Which videos were affected? What financial implications would this have for my channel? I explore this brewing crisis in my latest video.
I wasn’t alone in this. A quick search revealed that several other creators, especially smaller channels like mine, were facing similar issues. Some reported losing up to 80 and 90% of their revenue with no clear explanation from YouTube beyond the vague explanation of “invalid traffic.”
YouTube’s response to this has been, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. Their support articles mostly point fingers at creators, suggesting that the invalid traffic might be due to automated or incentivized traffic from third parties, or even friends playing videos from playlists all day long. I can confidently say that I’ve never engaged in such practices. I’ve built my channel from the ground up over a decade, always focusing on genuine content and organic growth.
What’s even more frustrating is the lack of clear communication from YouTube. When I reached out to their support, I was met with evasive answers. They wouldn’t specify which of my videos were affected or provide any clarity on the potential financial impact I can expect.
Speculating on the cause, I believe that channels like mine, which rely heavily on search traffic, might be getting penalized. About 42% of my traffic comes from people searching for specific product reviews. If YouTube’s algorithms can’t distinguish between genuine and “invalid” search traffic, channels like mine stand to lose a significant portion of their revenue.
But this issue is just the tip of the iceberg. YouTube seems to be undergoing an identity crisis. Their recent push towards “shorts” to compete with platforms like TikTok has had unintended consequences. Their usual communication discipline is appearing to break down as evidenced through a leak of their internal debates to a Financial Times reporter. The platform’s shift in focus to be more like TikTok and Instagram has affected how long-form content is recommended, leading to decreased visibility for creators like me.
The core strength of YouTube has always been its long-form content. But with the platform’s current trajectory, it feels like they’re sidelining creators who’ve been with them from the start. The lack of clear communication and support only exacerbates the feeling of being undervalued.
While I remain hopeful for the future, YouTube needs to address these issues head-on. Clear communication, better support for creators, and a re-evaluation of their current strategies are crucial. Only then can they rebuild the trust that seems to be eroding with each passing day.
YouTube announced this weekend that they will be disabling external links in the video description and comments for YouTube Shorts videos. This is the subject of my latest video.
This change, set to take effect on August 31st, has left me concerned for small and mid-sized creators who rely on affiliate marketing links for a portion of their revenue. When I first started making videos affiliate links drove most of my channel’s income and still represent a sizable portion of my overall revenue.
Affiliate links pay the creator a commission for sales that are generated from a user clicking on the link. What I really like about affiliate marketing is that it disincentivizes false advertising, as any returns made on an affiliate generated sale are deducted from the commission paid to the creator.
That’s why I was very disappointed to see the official response from YouTube’s “Creator Liaison,” Rene Ritchie, who said in a Twitter post that this was “the same as Reels and TikTok” and creators on those platforms were doing just fine.
I’ve always believed that YouTube offers a unique platform that stands out from its competitors through generous (and transparent) revenue sharing on long form videos, great discovery features, and the ability to use external links for affiliate marketing and other purposes.
The introduction of this restriction feels like a step backward – especially as their spokesperson devalues his own brand by comparing it to platforms that are the absolute worst for creator monetization. Perhaps Rene’s experience as a content creator and the creators he associates with are not struggling the way most monetized creators do on the platform. Some of us would prefer not to do the type of payola that clogs up TikTok and Reels.
One of the arguments presented by YouTube for this change revolves around security concerns, specifically the risk of scams and hacks appearing in comment threads. But YouTube solved that problem years ago by holding comments with links for moderation if the creator enables that feature (I do). Rene also rejected the idea of allowing those in the YouTube partner program to continue linking as he thinks it would make them a target for phishing attacks. But large creators are already the targets of phishing attacks as Linus Tech Tips found out a few months ago.
What I think is happening here is that YouTube is trying to get their own affiliate program off the ground which does work with Shorts. This new feature embeds affiliate links in the video itself but is limited only to retailers that agree to work with YouTube who presumably takes a cut of the action.
While this program has potential, my experience with it so far has been underwhelming. The click-through rates and conversions from YouTube’s affiliate links are significantly lower than my personally generated affiliate links and very few retailers that sell the types of products I cover are participating in the YouTube program.
I hope that YouTube will reconsider this decision and continue to support creators of all sizes. I love YouTube because it’s not a payola cesspool like their competitors. If that’s the vision for Shorts, fine. But the people I know at YouTube want to do better than that. And after all, it’s the creators who drive the platform, and their voices should be heard.
I’ve been a part of the YouTube community for about 18 years, starting as an avid viewer and transitioning into a content creator over the last decade. Over the years, I’ve observed the platform’s evolution, especially the algorithmic recommendations on the homepage. While these recommendations often present me with content I’m genuinely interested in, there are times when I miss out on channels I want to catch up with.
I think YouTube can fix this problem by updating their “Subscriptions Tab” to make it easier to organize and navigate subscribed channels. This is the subject of my latest video.
Last year I delved deeper into RSS feeds, a standard for content distribution that can be used with an RSS feed reader to aggregate content from various sources into one organized space. This exploration was an eye-opener as I discovered I was missing content from many of my favorite creators including some larger ones.
Apparently if you don’t religiously watch a creator you’re effectively “shadow unsubscribed” and rarely see their uploads on the recommended home page.
This discrepancy led me to revisit YouTube’s subscriptions tab which gives users the “fire hose” of everything uploaded from subscribed channels in the order in which those videos were posted.
The experience varies across devices. On desktop, it’s a mix of live channels and a chronological list of videos from subscribed channels. On a TV, there’s a semblance of organization with frequently watched channels appearing at the top but no way to control what channels get pinned to the top of that list. The mobile version offers filters like ‘Live’ and ‘Continue Watching’, but the overall experience remains cluttered – especially if you’re subscribed to channels that dump a whole bunch of content at once.
The subscription tab on TV pins frequently watched channels to the top.
One feature I appreciate on YouTube’s algorithmically generated homepage is the topic-based organization of its recommendations. It would be beneficial if such a system were integrated into the subscriptions tab, allowing users to view content from their subscribed channels based on specific topics.
To experiment with this idea, I set up my own RSS reader dedicated to YouTube. Using FreshRSS, I organized channels into topics, creating a streamlined content consumption experience. This approach allowed me to view content from local news stations, hyper-local channels, and other niche interests, all in one place.
In addition to subscribing to channels YouTube also allows the generation of feeds for playlists too. For example I added the playlist for Wil Wheaton’s “Ready Room” Star Trek interview show on the Paramount+ as that’s about the only thing I watch from their channel.
The best part about the RSS approach is that it’s more efficient from a viewing perspective and lets ME choose what not to watch vs. having an algorithm do it for me. Being able to see what I’m passing over is preferable to not seeing it at all IMHO.
While I appreciate YouTube’s efforts in content recommendation, there’s room for improvement in the subscriptions tab. As both a viewer and a creator, I believe that refining this feature will enhance the user experience, ensuring that we never miss out on content from our favorite creators.
In my latest video I discuss the concerning trend of broadcasters introducing encryption and Digital Rights Management (DRM) to ATSC 3 broadcasts in the United States. This move, while seemingly about preventing piracy and illegal re-transmission of signals, could significantly limit consumers’ ability to consume content in the way they want.
While consumers can watch ATSC 3 content live on next-gen certified televisions, they may face restrictions when trying to use apps like Plex or Channels for DVR recordings or outside-the-home viewing. There’s also the looming question of whether an Internet connection might be required to watch broadcast TV in the future.
I suspect that the motivation behind this move is largely to protect their re-transmission fee revenue broadcasters collected on a per-subscriber basis from cable companies and streaming services. Some estimates have it as high as $15 billion annually.
However, this shift towards DRM and encryption raises several questions and concerns. One of the most pressing is whether broadcasters could eventually charge consumers to watch what should be free television. While broadcasters are barred from doing so by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), I wouldn’t be surprised to see some broadcasters lobbying the FCC to allow it.
Another concern is the future of free TV content. As networks transition into streaming services, there’s a risk that high-quality content may become exclusive to paid streaming, leaving only local news and less desirable content for free broadcast TV. We’re already seeing examples of NBC, through Peacock and CBS, through Paramount+ offering content exclusive to those streaming apps that are not available on broadcast.
Since this video was uploaded I heard from a bunch of viewers who were recently impacted by this change. Here’s what Matthew Mello sent to me on Twitter this morning:
Here the Comcast owned affiliate encrypts their ATSC 3 over the air signal making it more difficult to tune for free. If you want to DVR content or watch on a phone you’ll have to subscribe to cable to get those features – with Comcast picking up subscription AND retransmission fees.
There’s a reason the FCC used to limit media ownership in a market!
As a consumer and a tech enthusiast, I’m keeping a close eye on these developments. If DRM gets activated where I live I’ll be sure to share my experiences and continue to advocate for consumer rights in the broadcasting industry. Until then, I encourage everyone to stay informed and take action to protect our access to free over-the-air TV.
Facebook settled a privacy lawsuit for $725 million related to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and other data sharing practices from 2007 to 2022. Over 200 million people in the United States are automatically included in the class unless they opt out.
In my latest video we take a look at the settlement and why I think the lawyers and Facebook / Meta are the only ones who really benefit.
The lawyers involved in the case are set to receive 25% of the settlement fund, which amounts to about $181 million. Users are expected to receive just a couple of bucks each depending on the length of time they have been Facebook users. The settlement also prevents users from participating in any future lawsuits against Facebook or their parent company Meta regarding any issue related to data sharing that took place throughout the fifteen years the lawsuit covers.
Anyone in the United States that had a Facebook account between 2007-2022 will automatically be included in the class even if they don’t file for a compensation claim. That means unless individuals take the effort to opt-out they will be barred from any legal action against Facebook should additional data sharing scandals and or damages arise in the future.
To opt out of the settlement and preserve your rights, you can visit the Facebook lawsuit website and follow the opt-out instructions.
A few months ago I started look at ways to follow Indieweb principles in how I produce and consume content. On the consumption side I spent some time freshening up my RSS reader with a blob of feeds that I have been tracking for almost twenty years now. As for creation I set up this blog and looked at ways to syndicate content from the blog out to other places.
In my latest video in this series we take a look at how it’s all working six months later. I also look at some ways to decentralize other parts of my work, including video using a federated platform called Peertube.
It’s been fun exploring how open source developers are engineering ways to replicate the experience and reach potential of centralized platforms but in a way that’s completely decentralized. Join a server if you want or spin up your own – either way you’re in control of your content and data. And the best part is that there’s no owner who can pull the plug on it.
The past few weeks have shown the perils of centralization with Twitter’s ongoing drama and the collapse of centralized crypto exchanges. In many ways centralizing things on the Internet runs counter to its design doesn’t it? With the proliferation of much faster upstream broadband there’s a lot of opportunity in the decentralized “fediverse.” I think this will likely be as much of a focus in the 2020s as centralized networks were in the 2010s.
