9 ms·

The battle between ad platforms and users is going to be never ending. For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads.

The battle between ad platforms and users is going to be never ending. For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads. Otherwise as difficult as it is to say, you are getting something for nothing and people do make a living from YouTube videos. Ok, maybe you can contribute to a patreon outside of YouTube, but you’re not going to do that for everyone and those videos are not served for free (even if Google is not short on cash)

afavour 5y ago
[deleted]
- FriendlyNormie 5y ago
  $15.99
- weird-eye-issue 5y ago
  They didn't say they don't have a premium option. They said that for users buying Premium is the right thing to do if you don't want ads.
FriendlyNormie 5y ago
No. Fuck your corporation worshipping lunacy. Youtube should be forcibly nationalized and transformed into an ad-free taxpayer-funded instrument of the first amendment with zero censorship. All youtube data centers should be raided and seized by the US military. Hand a golden parachute to anyone at google who might be upset about this. If they’re still upset after the privilege of retiring wealthy and early then it proves they had treasonous intent all along and they should be hanged.
anticristi 5y ago
I would, but: 1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below. 2. YouTube is extremely untransparent about revenue sharing, so it feels like I'm paying Google, not the creators. So give me more transparency and take a smaller cut, and I'll be happy to disable my ad blocker and start paying membership.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below. Agreed. If we look at the Bandcamp model, they only take 10% to 15%, and that's still high compared to Patreon.
  - JohnTHaller 5y ago
    Bandcamp starts at 15% and goes down to 10% after you cross $5,000 per year in digital sales. Payment processing fees are separate and an additional 4-6% according to Bandcamp. So fees start at 19%-21% and go down to 14%-16% once you exceed $5,000 in sales per 12 month period.
- falcolas 5y ago
  YouTube subscription views are worth far more to the creator (some 10x (I've even heard 100x from some creators) more) than full ad views within the same video. So, regardless of YouTube's cut, it's much more valuable to the creator, and valuable to you (no embedded ads). Win win, at least until an alternative arises.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    I suspect in the big picture this is not true. The kind of people with disposable income to give for paid subscriptions are far better targets for nearly all adverts, since they are far more likely to buy the premium products that have a far larger and budget, and therefore give the creator more per impression. I don't think YouTube reveals to creators enough information about which audience members generated which revenue for them to make that connection.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      You would be wrong. A simple google search revealed the following topical article. https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-payout/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p... The relevant quote: “... a Red view is on average worth 20x that of a normal ad view.” Another youtuber i follow recently said that this is still true today.
heavyset_go 5y ago
> For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads. Even if you pay for premium, you'll still get sponsored ads in the content.
- falcolas 5y ago
  That's on the creator, and no ad blocker will stop sponsored content.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Google could certainly detect when sponsored ads start in YouTube content and skip them to honor their "no ads" agreement with YouTube Premium customers. That, or they could pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release.
    - falcolas 5y ago
      I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in. > pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release. I'm with you on that.
      - heavyset_go 5y ago
        > I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in. SponsorBlock does it, and Google could make it part of their policy for content creators to mark sponsored ad segments in their videos so that they can be skipped.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    SponsorBlock will. It does require someone to flag the ads first though but so does most ads on adblocker lists.
- 5y ago
wayneftw 5y ago
I would pay to get rid of ads. The only problem is that I would need to log into YouTube to take advantage of that. If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all. The only solution is to use Firefox containerization or use separate browsers or separate browser profiles for things and I'm not going to do any of those because all of those options are annoying to me. If my ad blocker stops working on YouTube and/or if they require me to login, I'll simply stop visiting YouTube. There's plenty of other things to do!
- londons_explore 5y ago
  Google Contributor allowed exactly this, and after setting it up you did not need to be logged in to use it. It's closed down now due to internal politics.
- rchaud 5y ago
  > If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all. You can use Firefox Containers to sandbox Google logins. Alternatively, you can use a different browser when accessing Google-owned websites.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    If you click on a YouTube link now will the browser know what container to open that in?
    - wasmitnetzen 5y ago
      Yes, you can configure it in a way that every Youtube link opens in the Youtube container.
- sharps1 5y ago
  I have a separate profile that is set-up for Google (In Brave). You could also use a container tab if using Firefox (Or even a profile, but FF profiles don’t work as well as Brave ones). You can also see the YouTube creators who have BAT accounts set-up. I do pay for YT premium family as well as I don’t want other family members to see ads. Regarding FF profiles - if using more than one at a time, you need to set the others to -no-remote, and then opening links only ever opens up in the main windows. In chromium browsers when opening outside links whatever browser profile that had focus last opens the links).
ziml77 5y ago
I think even with YouTube taking a large cut, people should really consider Premium if they use it a lot. It means that there will actually be something to back up the claim people make that they would pay to not have sites serve them ads. Also Premium views are worth more to content creators than ad supported views, so it does help the people you love to watch. Not as much as through something like Patreon obviously, but it's a bit unreasonable to support every creator that way.
- that_guy_iain 5y ago
  One of the reasons I justify spending money on Premium is that it supports the creators. I get a bunch of people who think it's silly I pay for Premium, but I really hate watching ads so for me that alone makes it worthwhile. One channel I really like I have the youtube membership and pateron subscriptions. It's a UK true crime podcast that does every recording with professional camera and audio in a recording studio. Seems like it's expensive to do and I get a lot of entertainment out of them so seems fair to help them out a bit more, especially since most of their videos probably get demonetized.
  - adamcstephens 5y ago
    How do I find out what portion of a subscription goes to a creator?
    - SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
      It's not clear to me what you are asking, but if your question has a definite answer and it relates to Youtube as a business, I can probably help answer. Youtube has been my full-time job for years. About Premium generally, if you can afford it and you are considering it, there is no reason to hesitate. I say that both as a channel owner and as someone who pays for Premium every month. You never see an AdSense ad again, and you make that happen while still supporting the channels you enjoy. Pretty win-win, IMO. Two things that most people don't know about Premium: 1. On a per-view basis, Premium views are actually 'worth more' than ad-watching views. We're talking tiny fractions of a cent, but they add up. 2. Most so-called "demonetized" views remain eligible for Premium revenue.
decasteve 5y ago
Serving videos without ads was how YouTube's monopoly was built. It became an ad platform later. That created an expectation that YouTube was a library in the public interest. Pre-2010 Google marketing had that public interest and internet stewardship angle to it. Serving content over the web assumes that the content will be downloaded by a browser for rendering. Control over what and how that content gets rendered is controlled by the user. I think this aspect made, and still does make in the present tense, the web what it is. That's why the browser is called a user-agent--an agent that acts on behalf of the user. YouTube could also move to another protocol, or develop a proprietary one to protect its interests. Otherwise it feels like they want to have their cake and eat it too.
- topicseed 5y ago
  You're mentioning the end user's learned expectation to get videos for free. But what about the creator's expectation to get paid for their hard-earned views, to then pay for the gear purchased and the production of the entire video, including team members? If you're really anti ads, don't take the content for free, find another piece of content that answers your ad-free philosophy.
  - decasteve 5y ago
    I'm saying platforms can't have it both ways. If they want to avoid ad-blockers and video downloaders then pick another medium, or invent one and create a new thing that achieves this objective. The web is not TV. Public content on the web is public and user-rendered. That's what made the web and YouTube what it is today. YouTube has every right to create a proprietary YouTube client (which they do on mobile devices) and prevent browsers from accessing it. Don't serve files to my browser if you don't want me to use them. Creators, for better or worse, are putting themselves at the mercy of YouTube, as serfs to feudal lords. I'm sympathetic, and happy to pay (and do) for your goods directly, but don't complain to me if your lord mismanages your affairs. Even TV users had VCRs to save content "offline".
    - topicseed 5y ago
csunbird 5y ago
But Google is going to use my data for advertising, with or without premium. An adblocker gives me the luxury of not seeing ads while keeping my data private.
- sofixa 5y ago
  Maybe it's only for the EU, but on adsettings.google.com you cab tell it not to use personalised data for ads.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Google still has the data though.
  - csunbird 5y ago
    Unfortunately, I do not trust this setting at all. They still have the data and they will hoard them, and use it for unknown purposes.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  I don't think any adblocker could realistically stop Google from tracking what you do on YouTube.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    Flushing browsing data regularly should, except of course if you have to login to youtube.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
cpeterso 5y ago
I watch YouTube on my TV and the ads are annoying enough that I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away (and better support the content creators I follow). But I'm not ready to pay YouTube $12/month just to make ads go away. I would probably pay $5/month. Netflix's basic plan only costs $9/month.
- luma 5y ago
  YT Premium also includes YT music, and the creators you want to support get extra from Google when Premium users subscribe. For me, it’s worth the price and has almost entirely replaced TV for me (still need my F1 races...)
  - wooger 5y ago
    A totally unrelated service that you have to pay for ( and more expensive than rivals) is not a positive.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away Please don't; this gives money to (and thus rewards and encourages) advertisers; use something like http://youtube-dl.org/ http://youtube-dl.org/ instead.
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  The price of Youtube Premium is high because it's bundled with a music subscription. That's a shame and is also the reason I don't subscribe.
  - wooger 5y ago
    Me too. And the fact that even with premium, PiP on iOS is still deliberately broken on web & in their app.
- shultays 5y ago
  I am using https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext and it is pretty good.
_Algernon_ 5y ago
YouTube has the right to send or not send the file to my computer. My browser has the right to process the video on my behalf, including not showing it to me if it is an ad. My right to decide what my purchased computer does trumps YouTube's right to make a few cents by showing me ads.
cm2187 5y ago
It also enables tracking of what I watch by the company I trust the least in the world with tracking me.
wooger 5y ago
THen the right thing to do is not bundle that premium feature with other youtube music bullshit and inflate the price to 5x what it should be. And also, stop user-hostile behaviour on iOS to block OS level features (PiP, background audio) from working, even if you pay up. I would rather block ads and use Firefox exclusively than pay that much for a still-compromised experience.

afavour 5y ago

[deleted]

FriendlyNormie 5y ago
$15.99
weird-eye-issue 5y ago
They didn't say they don't have a premium option. They said that for users buying Premium is the right thing to do if you don't want ads.

FriendlyNormie 5y ago

No. Fuck your corporation worshipping lunacy. Youtube should be forcibly nationalized and transformed into an ad-free taxpayer-funded instrument of the first amendment with zero censorship. All youtube data centers should be raided and seized by the US military. Hand a golden parachute to anyone at google who might be upset about this. If they’re still upset after the privilege of retiring wealthy and early then it proves they had treasonous intent all along and they should be hanged.

anticristi 5y ago

I would, but: 1. I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below. 2. YouTube is extremely untransparent about revenue sharing, so it feels like I'm paying Google, not the creators. So give me more transparency and take a smaller cut, and I'll be happy to disable my ad blocker and start paying membership.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> I feel a 45% cut to YouTube is too big. Compare that to Patreon, which takes 5%. Granted YouTube offers a lot more for their cut, but the difference feels too big, especially given point 2 below. Agreed. If we look at the Bandcamp model, they only take 10% to 15%, and that's still high compared to Patreon.
- JohnTHaller 5y ago
  Bandcamp starts at 15% and goes down to 10% after you cross $5,000 per year in digital sales. Payment processing fees are separate and an additional 4-6% according to Bandcamp. So fees start at 19%-21% and go down to 14%-16% once you exceed $5,000 in sales per 12 month period.
falcolas 5y ago
YouTube subscription views are worth far more to the creator (some 10x (I've even heard 100x from some creators) more) than full ad views within the same video. So, regardless of YouTube's cut, it's much more valuable to the creator, and valuable to you (no embedded ads). Win win, at least until an alternative arises.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  I suspect in the big picture this is not true. The kind of people with disposable income to give for paid subscriptions are far better targets for nearly all adverts, since they are far more likely to buy the premium products that have a far larger and budget, and therefore give the creator more per impression. I don't think YouTube reveals to creators enough information about which audience members generated which revenue for them to make that connection.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    You would be wrong. A simple google search revealed the following topical article. https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-payout/ https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/totalbiscuit-youtube-red-p... The relevant quote: “... a Red view is on average worth 20x that of a normal ad view.” Another youtuber i follow recently said that this is still true today.

heavyset_go 5y ago

> For YouTube, the _right_ thing to do is to pay for the premium option which removes ads. Even if you pay for premium, you'll still get sponsored ads in the content.

falcolas 5y ago
That's on the creator, and no ad blocker will stop sponsored content.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Google could certainly detect when sponsored ads start in YouTube content and skip them to honor their "no ads" agreement with YouTube Premium customers. That, or they could pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release.
  - falcolas 5y ago
    I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in. > pay content creators fairly so that they don't have to shill for NordVPN in every video they release. I'm with you on that.
    - heavyset_go 5y ago
      > I'm not confident any automated system could properly detect a sponsored segment. Some creators are quite sly with how they're worked in. SponsorBlock does it, and Google could make it part of their policy for content creators to mark sponsored ad segments in their videos so that they can be skipped.
- Dah00n 5y ago
  SponsorBlock will. It does require someone to flag the ads first though but so does most ads on adblocker lists.
5y ago

wayneftw 5y ago

I would pay to get rid of ads. The only problem is that I would need to log into YouTube to take advantage of that. If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all. The only solution is to use Firefox containerization or use separate browsers or separate browser profiles for things and I'm not going to do any of those because all of those options are annoying to me. If my ad blocker stops working on YouTube and/or if they require me to login, I'll simply stop visiting YouTube. There's plenty of other things to do!

londons_explore 5y ago
Google Contributor allowed exactly this, and after setting it up you did not need to be logged in to use it. It's closed down now due to internal politics.
rchaud 5y ago
> If I log into YouTube, that requires me to be logged into Google everywhere and I do not want that at all. You can use Firefox Containers to sandbox Google logins. Alternatively, you can use a different browser when accessing Google-owned websites.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  If you click on a YouTube link now will the browser know what container to open that in?
  - wasmitnetzen 5y ago
    Yes, you can configure it in a way that every Youtube link opens in the Youtube container.
sharps1 5y ago
I have a separate profile that is set-up for Google (In Brave). You could also use a container tab if using Firefox (Or even a profile, but FF profiles don’t work as well as Brave ones). You can also see the YouTube creators who have BAT accounts set-up. I do pay for YT premium family as well as I don’t want other family members to see ads. Regarding FF profiles - if using more than one at a time, you need to set the others to -no-remote, and then opening links only ever opens up in the main windows. In chromium browsers when opening outside links whatever browser profile that had focus last opens the links).

ziml77 5y ago

I think even with YouTube taking a large cut, people should really consider Premium if they use it a lot. It means that there will actually be something to back up the claim people make that they would pay to not have sites serve them ads. Also Premium views are worth more to content creators than ad supported views, so it does help the people you love to watch. Not as much as through something like Patreon obviously, but it's a bit unreasonable to support every creator that way.

that_guy_iain 5y ago
One of the reasons I justify spending money on Premium is that it supports the creators. I get a bunch of people who think it's silly I pay for Premium, but I really hate watching ads so for me that alone makes it worthwhile. One channel I really like I have the youtube membership and pateron subscriptions. It's a UK true crime podcast that does every recording with professional camera and audio in a recording studio. Seems like it's expensive to do and I get a lot of entertainment out of them so seems fair to help them out a bit more, especially since most of their videos probably get demonetized.
- adamcstephens 5y ago
  How do I find out what portion of a subscription goes to a creator?
  - SpelingBeeChamp 5y ago
    It's not clear to me what you are asking, but if your question has a definite answer and it relates to Youtube as a business, I can probably help answer. Youtube has been my full-time job for years. About Premium generally, if you can afford it and you are considering it, there is no reason to hesitate. I say that both as a channel owner and as someone who pays for Premium every month. You never see an AdSense ad again, and you make that happen while still supporting the channels you enjoy. Pretty win-win, IMO. Two things that most people don't know about Premium: 1. On a per-view basis, Premium views are actually 'worth more' than ad-watching views. We're talking tiny fractions of a cent, but they add up. 2. Most so-called "demonetized" views remain eligible for Premium revenue.

decasteve 5y ago

Serving videos without ads was how YouTube's monopoly was built. It became an ad platform later. That created an expectation that YouTube was a library in the public interest. Pre-2010 Google marketing had that public interest and internet stewardship angle to it. Serving content over the web assumes that the content will be downloaded by a browser for rendering. Control over what and how that content gets rendered is controlled by the user. I think this aspect made, and still does make in the present tense, the web what it is. That's why the browser is called a user-agent--an agent that acts on behalf of the user. YouTube could also move to another protocol, or develop a proprietary one to protect its interests. Otherwise it feels like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

topicseed 5y ago
You're mentioning the end user's learned expectation to get videos for free. But what about the creator's expectation to get paid for their hard-earned views, to then pay for the gear purchased and the production of the entire video, including team members? If you're really anti ads, don't take the content for free, find another piece of content that answers your ad-free philosophy.
- decasteve 5y ago
  I'm saying platforms can't have it both ways. If they want to avoid ad-blockers and video downloaders then pick another medium, or invent one and create a new thing that achieves this objective. The web is not TV. Public content on the web is public and user-rendered. That's what made the web and YouTube what it is today. YouTube has every right to create a proprietary YouTube client (which they do on mobile devices) and prevent browsers from accessing it. Don't serve files to my browser if you don't want me to use them. Creators, for better or worse, are putting themselves at the mercy of YouTube, as serfs to feudal lords. I'm sympathetic, and happy to pay (and do) for your goods directly, but don't complain to me if your lord mismanages your affairs. Even TV users had VCRs to save content "offline".
  - topicseed 5y ago

csunbird 5y ago

But Google is going to use my data for advertising, with or without premium. An adblocker gives me the luxury of not seeing ads while keeping my data private.

sofixa 5y ago
Maybe it's only for the EU, but on adsettings.google.com you cab tell it not to use personalised data for ads.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Google still has the data though.
- csunbird 5y ago
  Unfortunately, I do not trust this setting at all. They still have the data and they will hoard them, and use it for unknown purposes.
babypuncher 5y ago
I don't think any adblocker could realistically stop Google from tracking what you do on YouTube.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Flushing browsing data regularly should, except of course if you have to login to youtube.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

cpeterso 5y ago

I watch YouTube on my TV and the ads are annoying enough that I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away (and better support the content creators I follow). But I'm not ready to pay YouTube $12/month just to make ads go away. I would probably pay $5/month. Netflix's basic plan only costs $9/month.

luma 5y ago
YT Premium also includes YT music, and the creators you want to support get extra from Google when Premium users subscribe. For me, it’s worth the price and has almost entirely replaced TV for me (still need my F1 races...)
- wooger 5y ago
  A totally unrelated service that you have to pay for ( and more expensive than rivals) is not a positive.
a1369209993 5y ago
> I actually looked into subscribing to YouTube Premium to make the ads go away Please don't; this gives money to (and thus rewards and encourages) advertisers; use something like http://youtube-dl.org/ http://youtube-dl.org/ instead.
benhurmarcel 5y ago
The price of Youtube Premium is high because it's bundled with a music subscription. That's a shame and is also the reason I don't subscribe.
- wooger 5y ago
  Me too. And the fact that even with premium, PiP on iOS is still deliberately broken on web & in their app.
shultays 5y ago
I am using https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext https://github.com/yuliskov/SmartTubeNext and it is pretty good.

_Algernon_ 5y ago

YouTube has the right to send or not send the file to my computer. My browser has the right to process the video on my behalf, including not showing it to me if it is an ad. My right to decide what my purchased computer does trumps YouTube's right to make a few cents by showing me ads.

cm2187 5y ago

It also enables tracking of what I watch by the company I trust the least in the world with tracking me.

wooger 5y ago

THen the right thing to do is not bundle that premium feature with other youtube music bullshit and inflate the price to 5x what it should be. And also, stop user-hostile behaviour on iOS to block OS level features (PiP, background audio) from working, even if you pay up. I would rather block ads and use Firefox exclusively than pay that much for a still-compromised experience.