4 ms·

YouTube is free. It's free because Google pays for it via ads. If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content. Exactly what are

by meritt 11y ago

YouTube is free. It's free because Google pays for it via ads. If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content. Exactly what are people expecting to happen and why are they mad at Google here? Why do they feel like they're owed something for nothing? If you don't like it, go launch and finance your own free-to-watch-no-ads-included video site.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I agree. I adblock but I fully expect web businesses to do everything in their power to stop me; if they think that's in their best interests. We're all looking out for number one.
zobzu 11y ago
its probably whats going to happen. Wait, its already happening. http://zeronet.io/ http://zeronet.io/ for example. served by users for users. all you pay is your ISP, thats IT.
- kyrra 11y ago
  "Works everywhere" except on mobile devices which is a major consumer of video today. It's definitely an interesting ideas but a long ways away from being somethings the masses can use easily.
decasteve 11y ago
If Google/YouTube doesn't like the autonomy we have over the http protocol, then it should launch its own proprietary medium/protocol/platform for its ad-driven business. The web is built in a way that allows me to choose how I render content.
BEEdwards 11y ago
OTA TV is free. It's free because the network pays for it via ads. If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content.
Retra 11y ago
I don't have to do that, I can just use an ad blocker. Besides, what are you complaining about? If you don't like people's opinions, go launch your own forum where you're free to pay for useless ads all day long and ban anyone who disagrees.
sliverstorm 11y ago
It's awfully ironic, IMO. We believe everyone else's information wants to be free- but MY information, oh my information wants to be strongly encrypted and inaccessible even to the courts.
hysan 11y ago
Incorrect. It's free because Google pays for it by: - tracking users both on YouTube and outside of it - then using the collected data to sell more targeted ads If it were just ads, then far fewer people would care about watching them (at least in the HN demographic). So if you are going to use this argument, please use it correctly.
- meritt 11y ago
  My comment is actually quite correct. The reality is YouTube generates revenue in numerous ways and only one of which I pointed out as it pertained to the discussion at hand.
  - hysan 11y ago
    > If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content. What if the user doesn't watch ads but allows Google to track them outside of YouTube, and then Google uses that data to sell higher priced ads elsewhere? Ads you may allow because not all websites are obnoxious about how they serve ads. That is another way you are paying for YouTube content. It's disingenuous [via your original statement] to state that not watching YouTube ads means you aren't paying for the content. Users are already paying for the content in a lot of other ways that aren't immediately transparent. Hence why I said you're incorrect. You are leaving out information to support your stance and make the issue black and white when in reality, it isn't so simple.
megalodon 11y ago
It's free because it was free before Google bought it in '06. The world wide web was based on the idea of sharing, not paying for content by being forced to watch ads that I would never ever watch intentionally. Or do you want the internet to be like television?

by meritt 11y ago

marcoperaza 11y ago

I agree. I adblock but I fully expect web businesses to do everything in their power to stop me; if they think that's in their best interests. We're all looking out for number one.

zobzu 11y ago

its probably whats going to happen. Wait, its already happening. http://zeronet.io/ http://zeronet.io/ for example. served by users for users. all you pay is your ISP, thats IT.

kyrra 11y ago
"Works everywhere" except on mobile devices which is a major consumer of video today. It's definitely an interesting ideas but a long ways away from being somethings the masses can use easily.

decasteve 11y ago

If Google/YouTube doesn't like the autonomy we have over the http protocol, then it should launch its own proprietary medium/protocol/platform for its ad-driven business. The web is built in a way that allows me to choose how I render content.

BEEdwards 11y ago

OTA TV is free. It's free because the network pays for it via ads. If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content.

Retra 11y ago

I don't have to do that, I can just use an ad blocker. Besides, what are you complaining about? If you don't like people's opinions, go launch your own forum where you're free to pay for useless ads all day long and ban anyone who disagrees.

sliverstorm 11y ago

It's awfully ironic, IMO. We believe everyone else's information wants to be free- but MY information, oh my information wants to be strongly encrypted and inaccessible even to the courts.

hysan 11y ago

Incorrect. It's free because Google pays for it by: - tracking users both on YouTube and outside of it - then using the collected data to sell more targeted ads If it were just ads, then far fewer people would care about watching them (at least in the HN demographic). So if you are going to use this argument, please use it correctly.

meritt 11y ago
My comment is actually quite correct. The reality is YouTube generates revenue in numerous ways and only one of which I pointed out as it pertained to the discussion at hand.
- hysan 11y ago
  > If you aren't watching ads, then you're effectively not paying for the content. What if the user doesn't watch ads but allows Google to track them outside of YouTube, and then Google uses that data to sell higher priced ads elsewhere? Ads you may allow because not all websites are obnoxious about how they serve ads. That is another way you are paying for YouTube content. It's disingenuous [via your original statement] to state that not watching YouTube ads means you aren't paying for the content. Users are already paying for the content in a lot of other ways that aren't immediately transparent. Hence why I said you're incorrect. You are leaving out information to support your stance and make the issue black and white when in reality, it isn't so simple.

megalodon 11y ago

It's free because it was free before Google bought it in '06. The world wide web was based on the idea of sharing, not paying for content by being forced to watch ads that I would never ever watch intentionally. Or do you want the internet to be like television?