5 ms·

Which I will absolutely never be doing.

by alexb_ 3y ago

izacus 3y ago
Why should they care about your indignation then? You're literally just costing them money in resources.
Insanity 3y ago
Honest question - why not? I am paying for Youtube Premium, it's not different to me than paying for Netflix or Spotify. I'm using a service which I like so I don't mind supporting it. If it helps me get rid of ads, so much the better.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  it's certainly different than Netflix given that they actually make content. On Youtube you're just paying a tax to the fiefdom. Given that a lot of creators have patreon which takes a miniscule cut I'd rather pay creators as directly as possible. Paying a company with a market dominating position 150 bucks per year to not hold me hostage with blocked UI functions is kind of ridiculous.
  - igetspam 3y ago
    While I wouldn't pay for YT either, they do have serious infrastructure costs so it's not quite as you describe.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
      While I agree with your comment there is something seriously wrong with the fact that Google can use its infinite funds so that a serious competitor for YT never has any chances of appearing. If YT were a standalone company and would compete on fair terms in others, we might see some reasonable business models appear.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    We know how much Netflix spends on content. In 2022, it was 52% of their revenue ($16.7B content budget, $32B revenue). We also know how much YouTube pays for the content, since their ad revenue split has been public for like a decade. It's 55% to the creators for the content, 45% to YouTube for the technical and social infrastructure. Huh. Looks like YouTube pays more for their content than Netflix does! Given the only stated basis for your opinion turned out to be incorrect, are you changing your mind?
    - Barrin92 3y ago
      No, that napkin math doesn't check out unless you think Youtube is a non-profit. They pocket half of what creators make, and that has no relationship to their infrastructure cost, it's a function of their market power. They could change that revenue split tomorrow to 70/30 while they cut infrastructure costs for all you or I know. You somehow turned my argument on its head. I don't care how much Netflix or YT pay for content, I only care that I pay directly for content, and because Netflix is a media company, not a platform, I don't need to guess how much they're squeezing creators or consumers. I transparently pay for a movie catalog, and that is the service provided.
- jona-f 3y ago
  Any money i could give to google is a drop in their ocean of ad revenue, that's why. Google is being disingenuous af, nothing new. Also Youtube has become so important it should be much more regulated.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  Google would be one of the last companies I would shove money into, voluntarily. All the ads that YT shows are paid by us when we buy products of companies that pay Google to show ads. This is how Google is getting all their billions, from you (wether or not you personally watch ads, as long companies believe it's worth giving money for showing ads). It's such a parasitic business model that I am glad I can be a parasite to Google
  - grupthink 3y ago
    The money flow looks like this: Ad -> YT -> Content Creators You prevent YT and Content Creators from making money when you block an ad. Blocking ads of these products, means when you purchase a product (shampoo, razors, etc) more of your money goes into these companies that created these products. And, in your case, who pays the content creator for the content you enjoy? and who pays for the engineering and infrastructure that delivered the content? And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either.
    - candiodari 3y ago
      > And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either. That's the big con behind ads, especially online ads. If there was research showing that ads don't make any difference at all for the vast majority of purchases ... https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/digital-ads-dont-work-and-everyone-knows-it/ https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/digital... Secondly, ads are a more insidious version of the old visa scam. They're a tax on everyone, whether they viewed the ad or not. I avoid ads, and where I can't I actively avoid the product. It's not even about being cheap, I am actively disgusted at ads these days, and that transfers to the product being advertised. I doubt I'm the only one. Thirdly, already Youtube ads don't allow "normal" content creators to survive. Not enough money. So youtube is a con. Content creators won't keep creating ... and it doesn't matter what you do. Youtube is a pyramid scheme, in that it's making the promise of jobs, even richess if you just "produce content", and it's dependent on a constant flow of fresh suckers taking that bet. Nearly all of them will lose big. Just about every one of "my favorite creators" have a video complaining about it (those videos are really becoming boring), yet the vast majority of their views are monetized, so even "fixing" ad blocking 100% won't help them.
- gaius_baltar 3y ago
  > Honest question - why not? YT Premium only makes the problem worse by requiring you to log in using an account that is tied to your real world identity and was used for payment processing. You just end up giving more data points to Google to track you, cross-reference with other sources and shove more ads in other platforms, still get native ads, and Google can just add their own ads later (as it is happening step by step with streaming companies).
- BLKNSLVR 3y ago
  One thing for me is that the youtube app stops the audio when the phone locks. I want to listen to a video while I'm driving, I'll even put up with the ads, but I actually can't do it unless I use an alternative front-end app - which is how I've solved the problem. Restricting background-play is an active choice on Youtube's part to prevent what I would consider a basic function and hold it hostage behind their paywall. That behaviour fucks me off such that I refuse to sponsor it.
  - thot_experiment 3y ago
    Highly recommend newpipe, an alternate youtube client that doesn't do this bullshit. (ofc not available on iOS because apple hates you having choices)
    - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
      Vanced still works for me, but I've got newpipe, libretube, skytube as alternatives ;)
- acheron 3y ago
  Because it’s giving money to Google? Plus half the problem is the tracking, they’re not going to stop tracking me if I pay them, and then I have to use it logged in which just makes the tracking easier.
topicseed 3y ago
That's kind for the video makers you're actively not supporting.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  If you want to help video makers get Youtube to be transparent about its payout structure.

Which I will absolutely never be doing.

by alexb_ 3y ago

Which I will absolutely never be doing.

izacus 3y ago

Why should they care about your indignation then? You're literally just costing them money in resources.

Insanity 3y ago

Honest question - why not? I am paying for Youtube Premium, it's not different to me than paying for Netflix or Spotify. I'm using a service which I like so I don't mind supporting it. If it helps me get rid of ads, so much the better.

Barrin92 3y ago
it's certainly different than Netflix given that they actually make content. On Youtube you're just paying a tax to the fiefdom. Given that a lot of creators have patreon which takes a miniscule cut I'd rather pay creators as directly as possible. Paying a company with a market dominating position 150 bucks per year to not hold me hostage with blocked UI functions is kind of ridiculous.
- igetspam 3y ago
  While I wouldn't pay for YT either, they do have serious infrastructure costs so it's not quite as you describe.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
    While I agree with your comment there is something seriously wrong with the fact that Google can use its infinite funds so that a serious competitor for YT never has any chances of appearing. If YT were a standalone company and would compete on fair terms in others, we might see some reasonable business models appear.
- jsnell 3y ago
  We know how much Netflix spends on content. In 2022, it was 52% of their revenue ($16.7B content budget, $32B revenue). We also know how much YouTube pays for the content, since their ad revenue split has been public for like a decade. It's 55% to the creators for the content, 45% to YouTube for the technical and social infrastructure. Huh. Looks like YouTube pays more for their content than Netflix does! Given the only stated basis for your opinion turned out to be incorrect, are you changing your mind?
  - Barrin92 3y ago
    No, that napkin math doesn't check out unless you think Youtube is a non-profit. They pocket half of what creators make, and that has no relationship to their infrastructure cost, it's a function of their market power. They could change that revenue split tomorrow to 70/30 while they cut infrastructure costs for all you or I know. You somehow turned my argument on its head. I don't care how much Netflix or YT pay for content, I only care that I pay directly for content, and because Netflix is a media company, not a platform, I don't need to guess how much they're squeezing creators or consumers. I transparently pay for a movie catalog, and that is the service provided.
jona-f 3y ago
Any money i could give to google is a drop in their ocean of ad revenue, that's why. Google is being disingenuous af, nothing new. Also Youtube has become so important it should be much more regulated.
tcfhgj 3y ago
Google would be one of the last companies I would shove money into, voluntarily. All the ads that YT shows are paid by us when we buy products of companies that pay Google to show ads. This is how Google is getting all their billions, from you (wether or not you personally watch ads, as long companies believe it's worth giving money for showing ads). It's such a parasitic business model that I am glad I can be a parasite to Google
- grupthink 3y ago
  The money flow looks like this: Ad -> YT -> Content Creators You prevent YT and Content Creators from making money when you block an ad. Blocking ads of these products, means when you purchase a product (shampoo, razors, etc) more of your money goes into these companies that created these products. And, in your case, who pays the content creator for the content you enjoy? and who pays for the engineering and infrastructure that delivered the content? And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either.
  - candiodari 3y ago
    > And, since you never saw the ad, you likely didn't buy any product either. That's the big con behind ads, especially online ads. If there was research showing that ads don't make any difference at all for the vast majority of purchases ... https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/digital-ads-dont-work-and-everyone-knows-it/ https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/digital... Secondly, ads are a more insidious version of the old visa scam. They're a tax on everyone, whether they viewed the ad or not. I avoid ads, and where I can't I actively avoid the product. It's not even about being cheap, I am actively disgusted at ads these days, and that transfers to the product being advertised. I doubt I'm the only one. Thirdly, already Youtube ads don't allow "normal" content creators to survive. Not enough money. So youtube is a con. Content creators won't keep creating ... and it doesn't matter what you do. Youtube is a pyramid scheme, in that it's making the promise of jobs, even richess if you just "produce content", and it's dependent on a constant flow of fresh suckers taking that bet. Nearly all of them will lose big. Just about every one of "my favorite creators" have a video complaining about it (those videos are really becoming boring), yet the vast majority of their views are monetized, so even "fixing" ad blocking 100% won't help them.
gaius_baltar 3y ago
> Honest question - why not? YT Premium only makes the problem worse by requiring you to log in using an account that is tied to your real world identity and was used for payment processing. You just end up giving more data points to Google to track you, cross-reference with other sources and shove more ads in other platforms, still get native ads, and Google can just add their own ads later (as it is happening step by step with streaming companies).
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
One thing for me is that the youtube app stops the audio when the phone locks. I want to listen to a video while I'm driving, I'll even put up with the ads, but I actually can't do it unless I use an alternative front-end app - which is how I've solved the problem. Restricting background-play is an active choice on Youtube's part to prevent what I would consider a basic function and hold it hostage behind their paywall. That behaviour fucks me off such that I refuse to sponsor it.
- thot_experiment 3y ago
  Highly recommend newpipe, an alternate youtube client that doesn't do this bullshit. (ofc not available on iOS because apple hates you having choices)
  - BLKNSLVR 3y ago
    Vanced still works for me, but I've got newpipe, libretube, skytube as alternatives ;)
acheron 3y ago
Because it’s giving money to Google? Plus half the problem is the tracking, they’re not going to stop tracking me if I pay them, and then I have to use it logged in which just makes the tracking easier.

topicseed 3y ago

That's kind for the video makers you're actively not supporting.

anigbrowl 3y ago
If you want to help video makers get Youtube to be transparent about its payout structure.