4 ms·

If I skipped Hanlon's Razor and jumped to assuming your speculations are right, then I'd say Google wants to head off a future where people specifically donate

If I skipped Hanlon's Razor and jumped to assuming your speculations are right, then I'd say Google wants to head off a future where people specifically donate to those who aren't doing ad-monetizing (i.e. the only ones who actually deserve donations!!) Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…

stcredzero 8y ago
> The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away… Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
- vkou 8y ago
  > Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result. Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
notriddle 8y ago
They should set up a way for viewers to fund creators through YouTube itself instead of through a third-party crowdfunding service. That way, they can take their cut for keeping the lights on. Since they know what videos you watch, they could automatically distribute teh monies the same way they already do, but just not show you an ad. What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium. And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
- Sabinus 8y ago
  They're actually trialing this feature. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
- quadrangle 8y ago
  They are happy enough to get into that world if it's part of keeping everyone on YouTube where they still get to be the dominant ad system overall. Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model. What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up. http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_PokeBlocker.png http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...

stcredzero 8y ago

> The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away… Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.

vkou 8y ago
> Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result. Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate? It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.

notriddle 8y ago

They should set up a way for viewers to fund creators through YouTube itself instead of through a third-party crowdfunding service. That way, they can take their cut for keeping the lights on. Since they know what videos you watch, they could automatically distribute teh monies the same way they already do, but just not show you an ad. What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium. And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.

Sabinus 8y ago
They're actually trialing this feature. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
quadrangle 8y ago
They are happy enough to get into that world if it's part of keeping everyone on YouTube where they still get to be the dominant ad system overall. Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model. What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up. http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_PokeBlocker.png http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...