4 ms·

Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more adve

by addaon 4y ago

Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more advertising unreasonable?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 4y ago
It's unreasonable to expect YouTube Premium to filter out content inserted by the video creator when that's not the terms either you or the creator were given. I pay for Nebula and don't see any ads or sponsorships there, but I don't begrudge the sponsorships on regular YouTube. If the sponsorships bug you that much, use sponsorblock.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this of Youtube Premium, as that is not the value proposition of that product. The original comment was proposing a new product, at a higher price point to reflect its higher costs, that /does/ cater to this expectation.
- mLuby 4y ago
  It's totally reasonable: users would be happier, YouTube can charge more for it (YT Premium+?), and YT analytics can detect when a sponsor segment (which many videos already label, and which are known to be about 60s long) is skipped and pass those metrics on to the content creator so the sponsor isn't being cheated. Everybody wins. (Yes this doesn't work for heavily integrated sponsorships but it'd still get most of them.)
taberiand 4y ago
Frequently you can pay more to individual YouTubers for that service, many have Patreon or other methods of providing early ad free versions of their content.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes. This is a very, very good answer when it's available as an option. I do think, though, that if the best answer to "YouTube doesn't let me do <x>" is "pay an alternate service provider instead," it might suggest a market opportunity for YouTube to provide the same service with much less friction.

4 ms·

Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more adve

by addaon 4y ago

Yes. It is a somewhat-less-bad form of even more advertising. If you think paying to avoid some advertising is reasonable, why is paying more to avoid more advertising unreasonable?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 4y ago
It's unreasonable to expect YouTube Premium to filter out content inserted by the video creator when that's not the terms either you or the creator were given. I pay for Nebula and don't see any ads or sponsorships there, but I don't begrudge the sponsorships on regular YouTube. If the sponsorships bug you that much, use sponsorblock.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes, I agree that it is unreasonable to expect this of Youtube Premium, as that is not the value proposition of that product. The original comment was proposing a new product, at a higher price point to reflect its higher costs, that /does/ cater to this expectation.
- mLuby 4y ago
  It's totally reasonable: users would be happier, YouTube can charge more for it (YT Premium+?), and YT analytics can detect when a sponsor segment (which many videos already label, and which are known to be about 60s long) is skipped and pass those metrics on to the content creator so the sponsor isn't being cheated. Everybody wins. (Yes this doesn't work for heavily integrated sponsorships but it'd still get most of them.)
taberiand 4y ago
Frequently you can pay more to individual YouTubers for that service, many have Patreon or other methods of providing early ad free versions of their content.
- addaon 4y ago
  Yes. This is a very, very good answer when it's available as an option. I do think, though, that if the best answer to "YouTube doesn't let me do <x>" is "pay an alternate service provider instead," it might suggest a market opportunity for YouTube to provide the same service with much less friction.