4 ms·
I would pay a sub for YouTube due to the value provided if they, in turn, paid me for the data they have stolen from me. Of course, if I get to name my price in
by wintermutestwin 5y ago
I would pay a sub for YouTube due to the value provided if they, in turn, paid me for the data they have stolen from me. Of course, if I get to name my price in this "free market," they would be paying me far more than they could reasonably charge for YT. And really, why would I want to give money to an abusive company?
I keep hearing this lament that everyone just wants stuff for free. I think it is a distraction from the current wild west where these surveillance companies are the ones getting high value data for petty baubles.
- duxup 5y ago> these surveillance companies are the ones getting high value data for petty baubles Because we give it to them. The end user's choices matter here.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y agoBut should the audience pay or the creators? I can pay a subscription to watch videos but the creators may choose another video hosting service. So this only works if it's a monopoly, or if the services agrees to create a federation. Looks like PeerTube is better suited for this than Youtube but who should I pay and how do hosting platforms pay each creator wherever they host their content?
- savingsPossible 5y ago"give" only in the technical sense. "did not turn off third party cookies" should not equate "authorized this company to log about every site I visit" (of course, if you are on youtube itself, that is another matter -- but you are replying to, I think, a more general comment about the two sides and the value they obtain/extract from each other)