![](https://aussie.zone/pictrs/image/0b47d3d5-1e51-43ce-98ef-3a6ca8c79941.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/a18b0c69-23c9-4b2a-b8e0-3aca0172390d.png)
Again, revenue. They report revenue because it’s a nice big number, but it’s different to profit (which is why a lot of people suspect they don’t make much actual money, if any).
Canberra local, lover of all things geeky
Again, revenue. They report revenue because it’s a nice big number, but it’s different to profit (which is why a lot of people suspect they don’t make much actual money, if any).
Revenue, sure - I don’t believe Google shares profit numbers for Youtube separately to the rest of the portfolio. I could be misinformed though.
Like legit, some of these comments are utterly deranged. YouTube has ZERO competition in the mass market consumer space, everyone else is a niche player, and it’s debatable whether YouTube even turns a profit despite that.
And that’s not even getting into how banks worldwide have been cutting down on staff numbers for years, and directing people to just their apps instead.
The major point is not so much whether your browser could block ads - your point regarding the browser ultimately having to render each element is true. The problem is that if the web server gets a request from an unattested browser (such as an old version, or one that has an ad blocker installed), it will refuse to serve any content, not just ads.
Regular people will inevitably get frustrated and we end up in scenarios like “<x browser>is bad, it doesn’t work with <y site>” because of this proposal, and more and more people end up switching until you have to use a compliant (Chromium-based) browser to do anything at all on the internet, and Google’s strangehold on web standards solidifies even further.
As much as we can (and should) lambast Facebook/Meta’s C-Suite for terrible decisions, their engineers are generally pretty legit.
Kbin devs, apparently.