4 ms·

I don't give a fck! I'll unsubscribe from the few channels I watch on youtube (like PBS or two minute papers) and I'll stop watching youtube exactly as I stoppe

I don't give a fck! I'll unsubscribe from the few channels I watch on youtube (like PBS or two minute papers) and I'll stop watching youtube exactly as I stopped to watch TV 2 decades ago. I still can read. With the AI improving I'm getting the reading content exactly as I want and I'll be not needing any talking heads to aggregate news and point me to the new papers very soon anyways. If I'd like to hear these instead of reading I'll attach TTS. That's about it. Fck ads. F*ck content interruption.

unmole 3y ago
Or you could just pay for YouTube Premium.
- throwawayadvsec 3y ago
  google don't deserve more money
  - unmole 3y ago
    But you deserve content for free?
    - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
      where do you think one of the largest company in the world go their money from exactly? They're already extracting more than enough profit from all of us at this point it's just pure toxic greed
      - unmole 3y ago
        > where do you think one of the largest company in the world go their money from exactly? From advertisers. That stream is being cut down by ad-blockers. > more than enough profit You are extracting more than enough value from YouTube already. You can either sit through the ads or pay up. It's just pure toxic entitlement at this point.
        throwawayadvsec 3y ago
        https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/reve... "Alphabet revenue for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $284.612B, a 5.28% increase year-over-year. Alphabet annual revenue for 2022 was $282.836B, a 9.78% increase from 2021. Alphabet annual revenue for 2021 was $257.637B, a 41.15% increase from 2020. Alphabet annual revenue for 2020 was $182.527B, a 12.77% increase from 2019." " By "cut down" do you mean "all time high"?
- yrro 3y ago
  £144 a year? I'd pay maybe £60
  - jjbinx007 3y ago
    That's interesting because the UK TV licence is £159 at the moment, which a lot of people find expensive, but that pays for all the BBC channels and programmes they make and buy, and iPlayer, and all BBC radio stations. Youtube Premium looks pretty expensive in comparison. I agree £60 is more of a reasonable price. I suspect/predict the ads on Youtube are going to get longer, and more numerous, and more will be unskippable, and therefore more annoying.
    - risyachka 3y ago
      So you pay for tv license and then get zero ads on tv?
      - yrro 3y ago
        BBC TV/Radio/Web sites/Podcasts don't have any ads in the UK.
        mnw21cam 3y ago
        Yes, they do have ads, but they're restricted to adverts for other BBC programmes. (That for some reason doesn't make them much less annoying.)
      - brigandish 3y ago
        It's also not very good so even that doesn't make it value for money.
      - jjbinx007 3y ago
        Not only zero ads, it's strictly no product placement and no brand promotion of any kind.
  - spidey1 3y ago
- expertentipp 3y ago
  Pay ad company with my personal data and money, while they still will display ads?! What kind of argument it is?
  - michaelt 3y ago
    With youtube premium they stop showing you ads. They also give you their spotify equivalent, youtube music. (Of course it's true you'll still see shill review videos, and video creators doing ad reads for shitty VPNs - but those ads don't come from google) > What kind of argument it is? Back in the 2000s, on tech forums whenever someone would say "ad blocking is theft, server costs have to be paid somehow" someone would respond "I'd pay to remove ads if they'd let me" - well, now's our chance to do exactly that. I adblock everything myself - but I earn a mid-career adult's salary now, and I get more value from Youtube than I do from Netflix so I don't mind paying for it. I also use gmail, google search and google maps with ads blocked, so I don't mind giving google a few bucks a month.
    - kneebonian 3y ago
      > With youtube premium they stop showing you ads. For now.... Until they decide to increase the price of ad free premium and introduce a new tier at the original price that includes ads. It's the same argument people made about how if you get free stuff you should expect ads and if you don't like things then pay for them. It turns out the things we paid for just started including ads as well.
      - climb_stealth 3y ago
        > For now.... Until they decide to increase the price of ad free premium and introduce a new tier at the original price that includes ads. Sure, but if that happens you cancel then. Not paying now because it might get worse in the future seems a bit backward. Unfortunately the enshittification of the whole experience is almost guaranteed, I agree with you there. But for now Youtube Premium is very much worth it when watching a lot. I have watched >160 hours since January [0] and am super happy with it. I always use an ad blocker so my experience hasn't changed. But it feels like the right thing to do. Also because content creators get more money per view from premium users. And because I pay for the family plan I don't have to be subjected to overhearing ads played by my immediate family either. [0] Youtube shows stats on the account page on how much the premium features were used since going premium.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Every time I read this argument I think of 1984: Talking to her, he realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.
  - unmole 3y ago
    Paying for a video streaming service is literally Big Brother?
    - colpabar 3y ago
      I am very privacy minded and I detest advertisements and the arguments in this thread seem ridiculous even to me. I was not expecting to see a full 1984 passage that quickly! Let’s just face the reality: the jig is up. I just really really hope the paid experience is completely ad-free.
    - happytiger 3y ago
      Absolutely. Note that the debate is now framed around the degree of advertising or the degree of tracking that comes with their paid subscription, and the entire conversation is about whether a service is reasonable in their fee and business practices. The entire landscape of conversation has been profoundly shifted from whether we should even allow this kind of tracking in the first place to how and what degree of tracking are we allowing. We didn’t need any of this when Bram Cohen’s BitTorrent ruled — and it was pretty damn efficient at digital entertainment distribution. People forget, all of these services launched to unseat that system because it was kicking so much ass. It’s not like we need streaming services — these are designed replacements for non-tracking systems. There is absolutely no reason a copyrighted entertainment system has to become streaming or come with truly VAST troves of data collection that gets sold en mass to every third party imaginable with no transparency. The technologies exist to do this in so many other ways. Yet, that point is rarely discussed anymore — the entire debate has been quietly reframed to a question of degrees. Now, to suggest that such a system isn’t necessary or even good elicits nothing but “it’s not a problem if you pay for an account,” and “it’s not like any other services are better about it.” The entire landscape has moved. There is a notable shift from individual consumption through direct ownership and the general assumption of the rights of ownership to individual leasing with intensive surveillance by proxy for the exchange or consumption of what I can only refer to as “entertainment commodities.” It’s rather insidious. Remember Winston’s lesson: The large mass of common people do not find in themselves the need to think independently, to question or to investigate what they have been taught. And then consider that the most powerful tool in the arsenal of power to influence humanity has convinced everyone that in order for them to be entertained they need to submit to constant surveillance and tracking in their living rooms and on their mobile devices everywhere they go. Social and streaming are the coin that is offered for this contract. It’s very literally big brother. And the debate has been reduced to what you will pay for the privilege of watching the latest Game of Thrones episode or whatever. It’s just becoming so conditioned that it’s becoming invisible to people. If this sounds conspiratorial, it’s not. It’s just a statement of the value proposition that’s being offered by these platforms and what they are trading for it. And people seem to be willing to foist over every last tidbit of information about themselves to be entertained. It’s the way that things are shifting in the debate — the classic reframing of the debate to degrees of surveillance capitalism — which is challenging. “Simply paying for an account” is actually opting in to a massive surveillance system that has deep implications to the future of society and the AI future we are headed towards. Read the EULA on one of those streaming services sometime, and then go look at what the data brokers have on you (and yes, they have PII they just can’t sell it, but state actors can access it). It’s interesting to me to see how the frog in the pot is getting boiled — it sounds fringe and makes me uncomfortable to even write this response because I feel like such an outside in raising these points these days. Forgive the long response. Just trying to give you a substantive answer, and certainly not trying to be aggressive in doing so so forgive.
- wintermutestwin 3y ago
  We are already paying by letting the Goog pillage our data and now you want me to hand these thieves my credit card?

unmole 3y ago

Or you could just pay for YouTube Premium.

throwawayadvsec 3y ago
google don't deserve more money
- unmole 3y ago
  But you deserve content for free?
  - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
    where do you think one of the largest company in the world go their money from exactly? They're already extracting more than enough profit from all of us at this point it's just pure toxic greed
    - unmole 3y ago
      > where do you think one of the largest company in the world go their money from exactly? From advertisers. That stream is being cut down by ad-blockers. > more than enough profit You are extracting more than enough value from YouTube already. You can either sit through the ads or pay up. It's just pure toxic entitlement at this point.
      - throwawayadvsec 3y ago
        https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/reve... "Alphabet revenue for the twelve months ending March 31, 2023 was $284.612B, a 5.28% increase year-over-year. Alphabet annual revenue for 2022 was $282.836B, a 9.78% increase from 2021. Alphabet annual revenue for 2021 was $257.637B, a 41.15% increase from 2020. Alphabet annual revenue for 2020 was $182.527B, a 12.77% increase from 2019." " By "cut down" do you mean "all time high"?
yrro 3y ago
£144 a year? I'd pay maybe £60
- jjbinx007 3y ago
  That's interesting because the UK TV licence is £159 at the moment, which a lot of people find expensive, but that pays for all the BBC channels and programmes they make and buy, and iPlayer, and all BBC radio stations. Youtube Premium looks pretty expensive in comparison. I agree £60 is more of a reasonable price. I suspect/predict the ads on Youtube are going to get longer, and more numerous, and more will be unskippable, and therefore more annoying.
  - risyachka 3y ago
    So you pay for tv license and then get zero ads on tv?
    - yrro 3y ago
      BBC TV/Radio/Web sites/Podcasts don't have any ads in the UK.
      - mnw21cam 3y ago
        Yes, they do have ads, but they're restricted to adverts for other BBC programmes. (That for some reason doesn't make them much less annoying.)
    - brigandish 3y ago
      It's also not very good so even that doesn't make it value for money.
    - jjbinx007 3y ago
      Not only zero ads, it's strictly no product placement and no brand promotion of any kind.
- spidey1 3y ago
expertentipp 3y ago
Pay ad company with my personal data and money, while they still will display ads?! What kind of argument it is?
- michaelt 3y ago
  With youtube premium they stop showing you ads. They also give you their spotify equivalent, youtube music. (Of course it's true you'll still see shill review videos, and video creators doing ad reads for shitty VPNs - but those ads don't come from google) > What kind of argument it is? Back in the 2000s, on tech forums whenever someone would say "ad blocking is theft, server costs have to be paid somehow" someone would respond "I'd pay to remove ads if they'd let me" - well, now's our chance to do exactly that. I adblock everything myself - but I earn a mid-career adult's salary now, and I get more value from Youtube than I do from Netflix so I don't mind paying for it. I also use gmail, google search and google maps with ads blocked, so I don't mind giving google a few bucks a month.
  - kneebonian 3y ago
    > With youtube premium they stop showing you ads. For now.... Until they decide to increase the price of ad free premium and introduce a new tier at the original price that includes ads. It's the same argument people made about how if you get free stuff you should expect ads and if you don't like things then pay for them. It turns out the things we paid for just started including ads as well.
    - climb_stealth 3y ago
      > For now.... Until they decide to increase the price of ad free premium and introduce a new tier at the original price that includes ads. Sure, but if that happens you cancel then. Not paying now because it might get worse in the future seems a bit backward. Unfortunately the enshittification of the whole experience is almost guaranteed, I agree with you there. But for now Youtube Premium is very much worth it when watching a lot. I have watched >160 hours since January [0] and am super happy with it. I always use an ad blocker so my experience hasn't changed. But it feels like the right thing to do. Also because content creators get more money per view from premium users. And because I pay for the family plan I don't have to be subjected to overhearing ads played by my immediate family either. [0] Youtube shows stats on the account page on how much the premium features were used since going premium.
happytiger 3y ago
Every time I read this argument I think of 1984: Talking to her, he realized how easy it was to present an appearance of orthodoxy while having no grasp whatever of what orthodoxy meant. In a way, the world-view of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.
- unmole 3y ago
  Paying for a video streaming service is literally Big Brother?
  - colpabar 3y ago
    I am very privacy minded and I detest advertisements and the arguments in this thread seem ridiculous even to me. I was not expecting to see a full 1984 passage that quickly! Let’s just face the reality: the jig is up. I just really really hope the paid experience is completely ad-free.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Absolutely. Note that the debate is now framed around the degree of advertising or the degree of tracking that comes with their paid subscription, and the entire conversation is about whether a service is reasonable in their fee and business practices. The entire landscape of conversation has been profoundly shifted from whether we should even allow this kind of tracking in the first place to how and what degree of tracking are we allowing. We didn’t need any of this when Bram Cohen’s BitTorrent ruled — and it was pretty damn efficient at digital entertainment distribution. People forget, all of these services launched to unseat that system because it was kicking so much ass. It’s not like we need streaming services — these are designed replacements for non-tracking systems. There is absolutely no reason a copyrighted entertainment system has to become streaming or come with truly VAST troves of data collection that gets sold en mass to every third party imaginable with no transparency. The technologies exist to do this in so many other ways. Yet, that point is rarely discussed anymore — the entire debate has been quietly reframed to a question of degrees. Now, to suggest that such a system isn’t necessary or even good elicits nothing but “it’s not a problem if you pay for an account,” and “it’s not like any other services are better about it.” The entire landscape has moved. There is a notable shift from individual consumption through direct ownership and the general assumption of the rights of ownership to individual leasing with intensive surveillance by proxy for the exchange or consumption of what I can only refer to as “entertainment commodities.” It’s rather insidious. Remember Winston’s lesson: The large mass of common people do not find in themselves the need to think independently, to question or to investigate what they have been taught. And then consider that the most powerful tool in the arsenal of power to influence humanity has convinced everyone that in order for them to be entertained they need to submit to constant surveillance and tracking in their living rooms and on their mobile devices everywhere they go. Social and streaming are the coin that is offered for this contract. It’s very literally big brother. And the debate has been reduced to what you will pay for the privilege of watching the latest Game of Thrones episode or whatever. It’s just becoming so conditioned that it’s becoming invisible to people. If this sounds conspiratorial, it’s not. It’s just a statement of the value proposition that’s being offered by these platforms and what they are trading for it. And people seem to be willing to foist over every last tidbit of information about themselves to be entertained. It’s the way that things are shifting in the debate — the classic reframing of the debate to degrees of surveillance capitalism — which is challenging. “Simply paying for an account” is actually opting in to a massive surveillance system that has deep implications to the future of society and the AI future we are headed towards. Read the EULA on one of those streaming services sometime, and then go look at what the data brokers have on you (and yes, they have PII they just can’t sell it, but state actors can access it). It’s interesting to me to see how the frog in the pot is getting boiled — it sounds fringe and makes me uncomfortable to even write this response because I feel like such an outside in raising these points these days. Forgive the long response. Just trying to give you a substantive answer, and certainly not trying to be aggressive in doing so so forgive.
wintermutestwin 3y ago
We are already paying by letting the Goog pillage our data and now you want me to hand these thieves my credit card?