4 ms·

I pay exactly $0 and see no YT ads, and I am a pretty heavy YT viewer. I just don't think it's right to have to pay. Advertisers use their dollars to influence

by mozman 3y ago

I pay exactly $0 and see no YT ads, and I am a pretty heavy YT viewer. I just don't think it's right to have to pay. Advertisers use their dollars to influence and make statements, also forcing stupid age restrictions just because someone swears. It's 1984 in 2023.

arp242 3y ago
> I just don't think it's right to have to pay. What makes you think it's right to be entitled to a free service? You don't want to pay. You don't want ads. So ... then what?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dendriti 3y ago
  Who said anything about "entitled"? Folks are ALL OVER this thread using emotionally-loaded language, because it's hard to argue for ads any other way.
  - arp242 3y ago
    I'm not argueing "for ads". The previous poster doesn't want ads, doesn't want to pay, okay, so then what? Offer an alternative please.
    - copirate 3y ago
      The people who want the content most could pay the content creators. These creators would pay for video hosting in the same way they already pay for their hardware and software. This way, you wouldn't have to pay (which is what the parent comment wants). But you would still have an incentive to pay, because if not enough people did, the content you liked might might not get made.
      - Brusco_RF 3y ago
        So in essence, someone else should pay. Just not me. Real solid plan
- mozman 3y ago
  I don't know if you knew YT around 2011 but the content was so much better. People posted out of passion, because there was no money. It was an intrinsic filtering to weed out profit seeking. I don't like the idea of creators getting paid, generally speaking. Information should be free. I don't see any difference between rent seeking and YT click bait regurgitating existing knowledge that's easily accessible
actuator 3y ago
Really? Something has to pay for the infra costs. Either tax money, ads or subscription fees. Choose one
- tadfisher 3y ago
  Donations would also work, but being a publicly-traded for-profit company sort of precludes that, practically.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    Youtube Premium is effectively a donation, frankly. It's not in the legal sense, you do get a "product" for it. But it didn't take me long to realize that even paying for Youtube Premium, I was better off not logging into my account and just using NewPipe. I really think the only reason to pay for Premium is if you want to donate money to Youtube.
- pierat 3y ago
  I'll choose piracy, adblocking and freeloading. It saves me money for actual physical goods. So... Which do YOU want to pay? I'll choose to escalate the ad-adblocker-block adblocker war. Winning so far.
- kuratkull 3y ago
  I think what people want is for the old system to continue (similarly to the Netflix password sharing crackdown saga) - youtube pushes ads for people who don't adblock, some pay for premium, and the others are free from ads due to their exceptional skills of browser addon installation. There are always people in the comments taking the side of the company with arguments like "they need to make money" - sure, i'm all for capitalism, free markets and profits, but I use my right to whine when a company changes the status quo for the worse (from my POV). Public outcry is a way to pressure them to either keep the current situation, or think of something else.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Indeed. The idealized market is supposed to be a feedback-based system. Publicly wining about what a company is doing is a form of consumer feedback just as much as "voting with your wallet" is, and arguably more effective. For companies, it's Marketing 101 that if you can't or don't want to sell what people want, you can always brainwash or beat[0] people into "wanting" the thing you want to sell. But we do not have to take such treatment silently, or without a fight. By resisting, we raise the costs of anti-consumer moves ever so slightly. Maybe, sometimes, just enough to make the company - or the next one to follow - rethink if the change is really worth doing after all. -- [0] - Metaphorically, of course. But when a company cancels the very product people like the most, in order to force them to use an inferior product, and knowing full well none of the competitors will come up with a replacement (because they're all in lock step, what isn't profitable for one won't be for another, etc.) - being on a receiving end of that does feel like being beaten into submission.
SoylentYellow 3y ago
> I just don't think it's right to have to pay. So you don't want to watch ads and don't want to pay for premium. What do you propose Youtube should do to make money to run the platform?
- brewdad 3y ago
  Why is that my problem?
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    Because at some point YouTube doesn’t run the platform anymore?
- mozman 3y ago
  I would rather see YT shut down and spark creative alternatives than continue its race to the bottom. Google is rich. Their products have stagnated. They have no user support to reconcile mistaken flags or strikes. It's anti user, the platform should be pro user. I'd like to see dark patterns pay their price and become deincentivized.

by mozman 3y ago

arp242 3y ago

> I just don't think it's right to have to pay. What makes you think it's right to be entitled to a free service? You don't want to pay. You don't want ads. So ... then what?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dendriti 3y ago
Who said anything about "entitled"? Folks are ALL OVER this thread using emotionally-loaded language, because it's hard to argue for ads any other way.
- arp242 3y ago
  I'm not argueing "for ads". The previous poster doesn't want ads, doesn't want to pay, okay, so then what? Offer an alternative please.
  - copirate 3y ago
    The people who want the content most could pay the content creators. These creators would pay for video hosting in the same way they already pay for their hardware and software. This way, you wouldn't have to pay (which is what the parent comment wants). But you would still have an incentive to pay, because if not enough people did, the content you liked might might not get made.
    - Brusco_RF 3y ago
      So in essence, someone else should pay. Just not me. Real solid plan
mozman 3y ago
I don't know if you knew YT around 2011 but the content was so much better. People posted out of passion, because there was no money. It was an intrinsic filtering to weed out profit seeking. I don't like the idea of creators getting paid, generally speaking. Information should be free. I don't see any difference between rent seeking and YT click bait regurgitating existing knowledge that's easily accessible

actuator 3y ago

Really? Something has to pay for the infra costs. Either tax money, ads or subscription fees. Choose one

tadfisher 3y ago
Donations would also work, but being a publicly-traded for-profit company sort of precludes that, practically.
- danShumway 3y ago
  Youtube Premium is effectively a donation, frankly. It's not in the legal sense, you do get a "product" for it. But it didn't take me long to realize that even paying for Youtube Premium, I was better off not logging into my account and just using NewPipe. I really think the only reason to pay for Premium is if you want to donate money to Youtube.
pierat 3y ago
I'll choose piracy, adblocking and freeloading. It saves me money for actual physical goods. So... Which do YOU want to pay? I'll choose to escalate the ad-adblocker-block adblocker war. Winning so far.
kuratkull 3y ago
I think what people want is for the old system to continue (similarly to the Netflix password sharing crackdown saga) - youtube pushes ads for people who don't adblock, some pay for premium, and the others are free from ads due to their exceptional skills of browser addon installation. There are always people in the comments taking the side of the company with arguments like "they need to make money" - sure, i'm all for capitalism, free markets and profits, but I use my right to whine when a company changes the status quo for the worse (from my POV). Public outcry is a way to pressure them to either keep the current situation, or think of something else.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Indeed. The idealized market is supposed to be a feedback-based system. Publicly wining about what a company is doing is a form of consumer feedback just as much as "voting with your wallet" is, and arguably more effective. For companies, it's Marketing 101 that if you can't or don't want to sell what people want, you can always brainwash or beat[0] people into "wanting" the thing you want to sell. But we do not have to take such treatment silently, or without a fight. By resisting, we raise the costs of anti-consumer moves ever so slightly. Maybe, sometimes, just enough to make the company - or the next one to follow - rethink if the change is really worth doing after all. -- [0] - Metaphorically, of course. But when a company cancels the very product people like the most, in order to force them to use an inferior product, and knowing full well none of the competitors will come up with a replacement (because they're all in lock step, what isn't profitable for one won't be for another, etc.) - being on a receiving end of that does feel like being beaten into submission.

SoylentYellow 3y ago

> I just don't think it's right to have to pay. So you don't want to watch ads and don't want to pay for premium. What do you propose Youtube should do to make money to run the platform?

brewdad 3y ago
Why is that my problem?
- saagarjha 3y ago
  Because at some point YouTube doesn’t run the platform anymore?
mozman 3y ago
I would rather see YT shut down and spark creative alternatives than continue its race to the bottom. Google is rich. Their products have stagnated. They have no user support to reconcile mistaken flags or strikes. It's anti user, the platform should be pro user. I'd like to see dark patterns pay their price and become deincentivized.