• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Shameless plug, if anyone here streams check out https://owncast.online/, it’s a self-hosted fediverse twitch alternative that I’ve really enjoyed, and the community is really nice. (No ads, too) If you feel comfortable setting up a docker container you can stream on the fediverse, and people on mastodon/other services can sub to you. (and if you want to see what it’s like, you can see my instance here: https://owncast.scrubbles.tech/ )

    • krimson@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      5 months ago

      Doesn’t this take up quite a lot of bandwidth if you have a lot of viewers?

      • Mechanize@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        This was an interesting question, so I took a quick dive in the docs, it seems it has an S3 integration to help with it, and some comments on the various supported services

        More info here: https://owncast.online/docs/storage/

        Still, depending on the chosen provider and the amount of viewers, it could be quite costly

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        As everything, a big “it depends”. Each viewer will eat more bandwidth, but you control the compression and qualities. For me, I have an unlimited fiber uplink, so it’s quite easy for me to self host. If someone were more bandwidth constrained, then hosting it on a cloud that then has much more egress may help - at a cost of course, but then your own personal internet would only have the one outgoing stream. Finding a provider that has super cheap egress traffic would probably help

        If you have a data cap… well… not a lot you can do.

    • The Hobbyist@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m trying to open your link but I get a Lemmy page saying this link does not exist. Is it a voyager app thing?

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Thanks, I knew I was skirting the rule, but I’m on a constant strive to convince people to move to fediverse alternatives. Appreciate the exception, and won’t make a habit of it.

    • gila@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      Doesn’t work on Twitch for me (using Firefox). I’ve had some success using ‘Purple Adblock’, but it works by connecting to a public proxy in an ad-free country for the duration of the ad - so it has issues during peak and can get you stuck in a loop

      • Jeffool @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s never worked for me either, but I don’t find them too intrusive in most streams.

        That said if I’m watching a Warzone tournament I usually just pop out the mini player in Firefox’s PIP and listen to that. They get their money and I get to keep watching.

  • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 months ago

    They could be charging $50 for ad free ON TOP of the $11.99. That’s a savings of $50! You should consider yourself lucky! You can’t afford NOT to take a deal THIS good!

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s sad that this has basically become a standard. Subscribe to a service, but then you have to pay extra on top of that to not see ads. Are we now supposed to be grateful that products and services we already pay for aren’t trying to bleed us for every cent they can get?

  • sgibson5150@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Just had my yearly car maintenance at the local VW shop. They’ve started passing on the credit card processing fees to the customer. It’s only like 3 or 4%, but it made me use a debit card instead of a CC. Guess that’s where we’re at now.

    • walden@sub.wetshaving.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think a law passed allowing businesses to do this now. Before they were bound by their agreements with pay processors. Typically they allowed a discount for cash, but not an extra charge for credit. The whole “$10 minimum for credit cards” wasn’t supposed to happen, either.

      Now the payment processors aren’t allowed to enforce that type of rule.

      Source: I read a similar comment elsewhere on the internet a couple of years ago, and that’s what I remember from it.

    • Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is normal though. I get 25% vat added whenever i shop online outside my country. Other countries have less or more vat. They can’t tell for sure, before you checkout because you may be ordering while not at your home country.

  • Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    5 months ago

    The really interesting question is, are they removing revenue from channels? Are you really supporting them by going adfree? Do the users who pay this still count as viewers of ads even though they don’t see them?

    • quafeinum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Nitro users count towards ad views and show as regular users… basically to count as a viewer you have to have the video running, doesn’t matter if the player or tab is muted.

      • Fugtig Fisk@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s interesting! So the more of those subscriptions twitch sells, the more they devaluate themselves towards the advertisers?

  • Balthazar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Didn’t it used to be that at the grocery store, if an item is advertised on the shelf for a different price than what it scans for, they give you something like half the difference? But there’s no code of ethics like that on the interweb.

    • casmael@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah in the uk I think if something is advertised at a certain price the shop has to sell it for that price - certainly happens fairly regularly at supermarkets

      • mdwhite999@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        That isn’t actually true. The price on the shelf is considered to be an invitation to treat. By taking the item to the checkout you are offering to buy it which they can reject. In practice they will sell it to you for the price on the shelf but this is not the law

        • casmael@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Oh cool yeah seems pretty obvious that they would be entitled to refuse the sale. Definitely see it in practice particularly at supermarkets tho tbh

  • invalid_display_name@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    Yeah, honestly this logic doesn’t make sense

    “If you pay for this subscription, we will stop showing you ads for free!” like- this is part of the subscription, how is it free lmao