3 ms·

A lot of content on the internet isn't worth paying for. Taking your YT Premium example, I'd say over half the content on there is garbage clickbait that is onl

A lot of content on the internet isn't worth paying for. Taking your YT Premium example, I'd say over half the content on there is garbage clickbait that is only viable because of ads - it doesn't actually provide enough value to the viewer (and often completely wastes their time) but the current system rewards that because by the time the viewer realizes that it's already too late and they've been paid for their ad impression. The problem with YT Premium specifically is that it still requires a Google account, agreeing to their "privacy" policy and provides no guarantee that Google isn't still going to stalk you.

endisneigh 5y ago
I highly doubt you've personally watched even 1% of what's on YouTube, so you can hardly determine what's clickbait. That being said, who are we to say what's valuable?
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  I'm extrapolating based on what I see on the front page and in suggestions as well as other social networks. Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. > That being said, who are we to say what's valuable? We can infer this based on whether enough people pay for the content. There's a reason you don't see a Patreon or other way of paying for the vast majority of clickbait content.
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    > Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. Exactly. There’s no issue. > There's a reason you don't see a Patreon or other way of paying for the vast majority of clickbait content. The vast majority of content, clickbait or not doesn’t have a patreon to begin with. Most patreon have social media presence which includes ads. Sounds like the worst of both worlds.
    - 9dev 5y ago
      > > Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. > Exactly. There’s no issue. Except all the work and energy wasted on creating trash content only intended for ad impressions? The world would be better off without it.
      - endisneigh 5y ago
        Nope. Trash content is just your opinion. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.
        Nextgrid 5y ago
        The fact that nobody wants to pay their hard-earned dollars for it suggests it's more than just his opinion. In fact, let's imagine a system where one side provides ads that you can watch to accumulate a monetary balance and the other provides content (including the aforementioned trash). Do you think people will still watch and choose to pay for said trash content? Or will they choose to spend that money on better content, or even cash it out and buy a meal or drink?
        endisneigh 5y ago
        That’s not the situation so it’s irrelevant.
    - Nextgrid 5y ago
      There is an issue. The content is clearly not valuable enough for people to pay for it, and in fact it's called "clickbait" for a reason because people clearly feel cheated by what they got as opposed to what they were led to believe they were clicking on. In a market where consumers of the content pay for it, this wouldn't fly. In a market corrupted by advertising, this flies and the by-product is wasted time, computing resources, pricing out good content from the market (as you can't compete with free) and the risks associated with advertising (the ads aren't properly reviewed, scams, spam and malware can and does fall through the cracks) and data collection. This also subverts the entire market and is the reason you can't even buy a good TV or appliance anymore without going for niche, commercial-grade products. Do you want to live in a society where you literally can't buy a TV that doesn't spy on you or show ads? Advertising in its current form is absolutely out of control and ends up being a tax that we all pay for both in time (whether watching the ads or playing cat & mouse with countermeasures such as AdBlock, Pi-Hole, etc) as well as money (as it's ultimately part of the price of the goods we all buy).

endisneigh 5y ago

I highly doubt you've personally watched even 1% of what's on YouTube, so you can hardly determine what's clickbait. That being said, who are we to say what's valuable?

Nextgrid 5y ago
I'm extrapolating based on what I see on the front page and in suggestions as well as other social networks. Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. > That being said, who are we to say what's valuable? We can infer this based on whether enough people pay for the content. There's a reason you don't see a Patreon or other way of paying for the vast majority of clickbait content.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  > Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. Exactly. There’s no issue. > There's a reason you don't see a Patreon or other way of paying for the vast majority of clickbait content. The vast majority of content, clickbait or not doesn’t have a patreon to begin with. Most patreon have social media presence which includes ads. Sounds like the worst of both worlds.
  - 9dev 5y ago
    > > Most of this content is only there to solicit an ad impression, not enough people would pay money for it. > Exactly. There’s no issue. Except all the work and energy wasted on creating trash content only intended for ad impressions? The world would be better off without it.
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      Nope. Trash content is just your opinion. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t exist.
      - Nextgrid 5y ago
        The fact that nobody wants to pay their hard-earned dollars for it suggests it's more than just his opinion. In fact, let's imagine a system where one side provides ads that you can watch to accumulate a monetary balance and the other provides content (including the aforementioned trash). Do you think people will still watch and choose to pay for said trash content? Or will they choose to spend that money on better content, or even cash it out and buy a meal or drink?
        endisneigh 5y ago
        That’s not the situation so it’s irrelevant.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    There is an issue. The content is clearly not valuable enough for people to pay for it, and in fact it's called "clickbait" for a reason because people clearly feel cheated by what they got as opposed to what they were led to believe they were clicking on. In a market where consumers of the content pay for it, this wouldn't fly. In a market corrupted by advertising, this flies and the by-product is wasted time, computing resources, pricing out good content from the market (as you can't compete with free) and the risks associated with advertising (the ads aren't properly reviewed, scams, spam and malware can and does fall through the cracks) and data collection. This also subverts the entire market and is the reason you can't even buy a good TV or appliance anymore without going for niche, commercial-grade products. Do you want to live in a society where you literally can't buy a TV that doesn't spy on you or show ads? Advertising in its current form is absolutely out of control and ends up being a tax that we all pay for both in time (whether watching the ads or playing cat & mouse with countermeasures such as AdBlock, Pi-Hole, etc) as well as money (as it's ultimately part of the price of the goods we all buy).