41 ms·

You can subscribe to YouTube premium for $12/month and be ad free and still support the YouTubers you are watching.

userbinator 5y ago
Hell no. They are effectively taking away our freedom to ignore and selling it back to us. Just donate to the creators directly.
- babypuncher 5y ago
  Something has to pay for that insane amount of storage and bandwidth. I'm not sure where people get the idea that YouTube should be a charity. $12 just to remove ads is way too steep though. There are premium streaming services with big budget movies and TV shows that cost less than that.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    > Something has to pay for that insane amount of storage and bandwidth This is my hill to die on: we already do. I bought a computer and pay an ISP for bandwidth, back when audio and video was just pirated there was no one to demand we watch ads in return for a few pennies of remote storage.
    - babypuncher 5y ago
      Your ISP doesn't cover the storage cost or outbound bandwidth of YouTube's servers. How is YouTube supposed to pay for that without ads or subscriptions?
    - Jtsummers 5y ago
      Well, video streaming, in particular, picked up in the mid-00s. But audio streaming predated it (slightly), as internet radio. It, very often, had ads. Pandora, circa 2005, also had ads (or a paid service). Advertisement in exchange for free access to media is not a novel thing.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      But what about the poor monopolists? How will their great great grandchildren get paid royalties?
    - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
      A major impediment to this is that Apple prohibits BitTorrent and similar apps on iOS, preventing a P2P YouTube competitor from becoming popular.
      - babypuncher 5y ago
        Apple doesn't ban P2P networking as a whole, just file sharing clients that are clearly meant for facilitating piracy. If Joost was still around I highly doubt Apple would block it from the App Store.
  - windowsrookie 5y ago
    I only pay $10 because I was an early subscriber, but I would still pay $12. I spend more time on YouTube than any other service so it's worth it for me. It also includes YouTube Music which means I don't have to pay for a Spotify or similar service separately.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - userbinator 5y ago
    Not my problem. Fuck them if they want to force me to consume. Remember that they want you to pay them to play content in the background , something every general-purpose multitasking computer could do before.
sergiotapia 5y ago
I won't pay a cent for youtube lol. Not a chance. I already pay Google hundreds of dollars for Google Photos.
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Imagine paying the surveillance capitalists not to annoy you with ads and then having to suffer videos with sponsors in them.
- adeelk93 5y ago
  You don’t want to pay, you don’t want ads, you don’t want sponsors. What does that leave? - State-sponsored media - Boredom
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    It's not about having none of them. It's about, pick one. If I'm paying you it's so that I don't have to see ads, so there better not be any ads. But also, there was actually quite a lot of quality content on the internet before there was any monetization at all. People like to hear themselves talk and some subset of them are worth listening to.
    - brokenmachine 5y ago
      100%, Corporations have done a really good job of brainwashing consumers into thinking that everything must make large amounts of money for shareholders to be worthwhile. It's never been easier for an independent writer/vlogger to get their content out there without having to get it past a focus group committee. There will always be good free content.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    Exactly, I don't want to pay for their crappy abusive service. Imagine paying so you can watch "ad free" content with sponsors and product placement, and be surveilled by Google on top of it too. Yeah, that's a level of indignity I won't tolerate. I encourage everyone here to do the same: don't support these companies and their abuse. Remember, Firefox with uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock all cost $0. > What does that leave? It leaves the people who create because they have something to say rather than a desire to make money. The internet used to have a lot more of those before these advertisers came and corrupted everything. I don't understand why people assume nothing will be created if there's no money in it despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, including free software. I suppose it's due to copyright monopolist propaganda.
acomjean 5y ago
I did that. It comes with YouTube music (which is a different thing, though some music has videos). It’s pretty good and has a lot of obscure music.

Hell no. They are effectively taking away our freedom to ignore and selling it back to us. Just donate to the creators directly.

babypuncher 5y ago
Something has to pay for that insane amount of storage and bandwidth. I'm not sure where people get the idea that YouTube should be a charity. $12 just to remove ads is way too steep though. There are premium streaming services with big budget movies and TV shows that cost less than that.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  > Something has to pay for that insane amount of storage and bandwidth This is my hill to die on: we already do. I bought a computer and pay an ISP for bandwidth, back when audio and video was just pirated there was no one to demand we watch ads in return for a few pennies of remote storage.
  - babypuncher 5y ago
    Your ISP doesn't cover the storage cost or outbound bandwidth of YouTube's servers. How is YouTube supposed to pay for that without ads or subscriptions?
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Well, video streaming, in particular, picked up in the mid-00s. But audio streaming predated it (slightly), as internet radio. It, very often, had ads. Pandora, circa 2005, also had ads (or a paid service). Advertisement in exchange for free access to media is not a novel thing.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    But what about the poor monopolists? How will their great great grandchildren get paid royalties?
  - AnthonyMouse 5y ago
    A major impediment to this is that Apple prohibits BitTorrent and similar apps on iOS, preventing a P2P YouTube competitor from becoming popular.
    - babypuncher 5y ago
      Apple doesn't ban P2P networking as a whole, just file sharing clients that are clearly meant for facilitating piracy. If Joost was still around I highly doubt Apple would block it from the App Store.
- windowsrookie 5y ago
  I only pay $10 because I was an early subscriber, but I would still pay $12. I spend more time on YouTube than any other service so it's worth it for me. It also includes YouTube Music which means I don't have to pay for a Spotify or similar service separately.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- userbinator 5y ago
  Not my problem. Fuck them if they want to force me to consume. Remember that they want you to pay them to play content in the background , something every general-purpose multitasking computer could do before.

sergiotapia 5y ago

I won't pay a cent for youtube lol. Not a chance. I already pay Google hundreds of dollars for Google Photos.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Imagine paying the surveillance capitalists not to annoy you with ads and then having to suffer videos with sponsors in them.

adeelk93 5y ago
You don’t want to pay, you don’t want ads, you don’t want sponsors. What does that leave? - State-sponsored media - Boredom
- AnthonyMouse 5y ago
  It's not about having none of them. It's about, pick one. If I'm paying you it's so that I don't have to see ads, so there better not be any ads. But also, there was actually quite a lot of quality content on the internet before there was any monetization at all. People like to hear themselves talk and some subset of them are worth listening to.
  - brokenmachine 5y ago
    100%, Corporations have done a really good job of brainwashing consumers into thinking that everything must make large amounts of money for shareholders to be worthwhile. It's never been easier for an independent writer/vlogger to get their content out there without having to get it past a focus group committee. There will always be good free content.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Exactly, I don't want to pay for their crappy abusive service. Imagine paying so you can watch "ad free" content with sponsors and product placement, and be surveilled by Google on top of it too. Yeah, that's a level of indignity I won't tolerate. I encourage everyone here to do the same: don't support these companies and their abuse. Remember, Firefox with uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock all cost $0. > What does that leave? It leaves the people who create because they have something to say rather than a desire to make money. The internet used to have a lot more of those before these advertisers came and corrupted everything. I don't understand why people assume nothing will be created if there's no money in it despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, including free software. I suppose it's due to copyright monopolist propaganda.

acomjean 5y ago

I did that. It comes with YouTube music (which is a different thing, though some music has videos). It’s pretty good and has a lot of obscure music.