3 ms·

I see you chose to ignore part of my reply mentioning the creators you are taking content from without paying. YouTube does not care as much, but the creators a

• colordrops 6y ago
  This points more to a problem with the monopolistic walled garden rather than the user. It's like saying a slave won't have food if you shoot the slave owner.
  • Fogest 6y ago
    I actually think you raise a very fair point and believe you have some merit to what you believe in. I will admit that I am not very fond of YouTube either. They have far to much control over the income source of a good amount of people. They could on a whim take away the monetization of a channel (which they do sometimes) and cause them a lot of financial strain. In terms of your slave comparison I would say a better comparison would be if the slave owner was doing poorly the conditions the slave lives in are worsened. This highlights that the slave does not have much chances to acquire food on their own. I wish there was more competition but I do not believe starving the slave of the system fixes the owner of the system.
    • colordrops 6y ago
      It is a difficult situation for creators. I do wish there were decentralized solutions that picked up some traction.
      • Fogest 6y ago
        I definitely agree with that however I feel like the barrier to entry to non-technical folks is too high. And then the second problem being that people go where the content is, and the content doesn't want to go somewhere without people. The classic new social media problem.
      • dennisy 6y ago
        So if a decentralised solution picked up, but it’s model was advertising based would you still choose to block ads?
        • colordrops 6y ago
          Yes, because the advertising model is a bane on humanity and they should just charge a fee for their content.