3 ms·

It's not really a problem to lose money on some users if they are making money over all. And they are, because Youtube is very profitable and drives billions of

It's not really a problem to lose money on some users if they are making money over all. And they are, because Youtube is very profitable and drives billions of dollars in ad revenue a year. They never really cared about every user being a profit generator for them. Except, last quarter, they missed their ad revenue growth expectations—as did much every big company around—and they are freaking out. That's what this is. It's not a question of whether Youtube can afford to keep the lights on, it's that Alphabet wants them to be continually _growing_, and this seems like a way to do that. I think Netflix empowered them to do this by cracking down on shared passwords, which was successful for them (at least in the short term).

comfypotato 3y ago
> It's not really a problem to lose money on some users if they are making money over all. Both sides of this argument are laden with assumptions. It’s a more opinion-based discussion than most. It’s a philosophical wormhole with no clear answer. (Not saying I agree with this.) It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion that using an ad blocker is morally wrong. This philosophy stack exchange does a good job of breaking down the argument in the context of music: https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-immoral-to-download-music-illegally https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/1597/is-it-im...