3 ms·
I totally agree, even if I hate it. There are a lot of internet users out there who have this expectation that they are owed a certain level of access for free
by zavertnik 3y ago
I totally agree, even if I hate it. There are a lot of internet users out there who have this expectation that they are owed a certain level of access for free to these services. Those expectations aren't unfounded: most content on the internet has been, more or less, free to access. It was a good time, but surely we all knew that it couldn't last forever?
The era of ultra monetization we're being ushered into is new and obviously its going to create some discomfort.
But that doesn't change the reality that these expectations are totally irrational and unreasonable. We can argue that the information should be free, that content should be accessible, that the sharing and proliferation of information without barriers of entry benefit all of us in the short and long term. But those esoteric philosophies can't win a debate against a corporations desire or fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit.
Money is tight for everyone across the board, borrowed or not (except maybe for apple). Why wouldn't they amputate the minority of users who are only costing Youtube money? I can't think of a good argument against it, other than "I hate it".
People are enraged by Netflix cracking down on account sharing, people were enraged by article paywalls, and people are and will be enraged by Youtube blocking ad blockers.
Unlike Netflix and article paywalls, Youtube has no real viable competitor. I get why the NYT allows me to bypass their paywall with a browser extension: if they truly make it impossible for me to bypass the article, I'll be able to find some other website that has reposted or reworded it. I get why Netflix allows me to bypass their account sharing: if they make it impossible for me to view the content without paying, I can just torrent it.
But Youtube is uniquely different. The product there is not just the body of content but their ecosystem which contains essentially every video on the internet and all the connective tissue to traverse billions of minutes of video. I use an adblocker on Youtube, but if they lock me out of that option, I'll still use YouTube, because where else would I go? No where.
Maybe I won't go to Youtube as often, but they'll have effectively converted me from being an extremely active viewer getting a free ride to an infrequent semi-active viewer that generates revenue.
- carlosjobim 3y agoThat brings an interesting question: Would people start torrenting YouTube if it becomes inaccessible without a subscription? YouTube is exploding with high-quality long-form content, maybe pirates will consider those kind of videos worthwhile to torrent? Maybe the creators themselves will consider it worthwhile to host them with their own subscriptions?