3 ms·
But this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at al
by quadrangle 11y ago
But this is just rewarding them for using ads in the first place while we ought to be most supporting those who treat us better by not using obnoxious ads at all.
The real point is this is actually about having more ads, just like Google Contributor. This is Google working to tell the world, "if you want to get paid, even by people who donate directly to avoid ads, you must first accept showing our ads otherwise". So this is about increasing, amplifying, reinforcing the ads because there won't likely be a way to say "I want to get paid when people enjoy my work, but I don't want to push ads on anyone ever". Google wants people like that to not exist. If you want to be paid in any form, you have to accept using Google ads. That's their end-game here.
- Artistry121 11y agoYouTube cannot be expected to be run as a charity nor would it get contributors to make money. If you host videos on YouTube the price is taking ads or allowing Google to charge a subscription. Google will still organize and catalog your video if it isn't on YouTube. It might be cool if video producers could charge per view on YouTube - but I feel that might cheapen the rest of the service as you could not go to YouTube expecting to find already paid for or ad supported value and it may lessen user engagement.
- zem 11y agoan interesting business model to support the grandparent's use case is for video owners to pay google not to show ads, and then hope that the subscribed viewer income is greater than the hosting fee.