3 ms·

The insidious aspect of this is the bait and switch YouTube did to consolidate their monopoly. A huge amount of videos were uploaded under the (idealistic and m

The insidious aspect of this is the bait and switch YouTube did to consolidate their monopoly. A huge amount of videos were uploaded under the (idealistic and misguided) pretence they would be freely accessible without ads and so on. Had the YT UX been this way the whole time then the online video landscape would be much more competitive today.

wombat-man 3y ago
How would youtube work without ads or subscriptions? Do you just not want there to be something like youtube?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- xigoi 3y ago
  Federated. Lots of people willing to host some videos on a server in their basement.
hot_gril 3y ago
Where did it say or imply they'd be accessible without ads? YouTube has had ads since the early days (2008 specifically).
- mahogany 3y ago
  > 2008 specifically Perhaps the parent comment is talking about pre-Google and you are talking about post-Google? I don’t know if the parent’s claim is correct about a bait and switch, but I can confirm that pre-Google YouTube did not have (video) ads and felt very much like a place for small independent creators. And from my memory, widespread ads on every video did not come into existence for many years. Originally they were only on selected monetized videos.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  It used to be the case that you had to be a YouTube partner to monetize your videos. They changed it so that you now have to be a partner in order to demonetize your videos. So anyone who just uploaded a video in the ~12 years between YouTube having monetization and monetization being mandated got ads put on their work retroactively and without permission.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    There's a difference between being monetized (i.e. creator gets money) and YT running ads. So are you saying that YT used to only run ads on monetized videos, and recently they started running ads on non-monetized videos too? Because I remember starting to see ads on clearly non-monetized videos quite a long time ago, like 2014. And it doesn't seem like a big deal; they didn't promise to host your video without ads forever, nor is that a reasonable expectation.
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Your memory might be hazy. YouTube made an explicit ToS change on June 1st, 2021 in order to allow them to monetize non-partner videos. They call this the "right to monetize": https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/110289140/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-june-%E2%80%9821 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/110289140/updates-...
kmeisthax 3y ago
There's several instances in which creators deliberately uploaded videos unmonetized under the understanding that this would comply with some kind of noncommercial licensing requirement[0] (e.g. NCommander's video on the MSWord 1.0 source). Such uploads are now retroactively illegal unless you're already partnered, since YouTube now only allows partners to disable monetization. To be slightly fair to YouTube, they never added NC clauses to their Creative Commons declaration support, but I doubt that was evidence of a 10-year plan to demand monetization. But on the other hand, they also made a huge stink about keeping Partner status out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it. That move now retroactively looks like YouTube trying to front-run smaller creators on ad revenue, especially if something they make goes 'viral' before they can make partner. [0] For the purpose of this comment let's pretend that 'not monetized' satisfies whatever flimsy 'noncommercial' license declaration exists
timeon 3y ago
This scam has happened with many sites and apps (Instagram). Build community and then sell it.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
doctorpangloss 3y ago
Hmm... the biggest category on YouTube is music, which until a colossal lawsuit was all pirated. It has and was built on piracy. Maybe you odn't believe me because it's "different" in your opinion today. Look anywhere else in the world, it's piracy dude. For example, here's a search for "seinfeld s01e03" for video lengths 10-30m on Bilibili: https://search.bilibili.com/all?keyword=seinfeld+s01e03&from_source=webtop_search&spm_id_from=333.1007&search_source=5&duration=2 https://search.bilibili.com/all?keyword=seinfeld+s01e03&from... I don't know. On the one hand, end users take from Google by blocking ads. On the other, Google takes from creators through piracy. At the end of the day, the problem with video is the lack of business innovation that's anywhere near comparable to games.
- tomrod 3y ago
  > It has and was built on piracy. Shiver me timbers, buckaroo. Won't someone think about the digital robber baron tycoons? Most of the internet was built with public dollars and content is engaged with (not necessarily hosted) generally non-commercially. If we look at total harm, content users tend to get the worst of it either by having to wade through malevolent ads or user hostile design. Yet, we collectively put up with it because we recognize the Internet is not a zero-sum game. Tay-tay is making enough money from the free marketing channels the Internet enables, she doesn't need more from a Youtube stream.

wombat-man 3y ago

How would youtube work without ads or subscriptions? Do you just not want there to be something like youtube?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
xigoi 3y ago
Federated. Lots of people willing to host some videos on a server in their basement.

hot_gril 3y ago

Where did it say or imply they'd be accessible without ads? YouTube has had ads since the early days (2008 specifically).

mahogany 3y ago
> 2008 specifically Perhaps the parent comment is talking about pre-Google and you are talking about post-Google? I don’t know if the parent’s claim is correct about a bait and switch, but I can confirm that pre-Google YouTube did not have (video) ads and felt very much like a place for small independent creators. And from my memory, widespread ads on every video did not come into existence for many years. Originally they were only on selected monetized videos.
kmeisthax 3y ago
It used to be the case that you had to be a YouTube partner to monetize your videos. They changed it so that you now have to be a partner in order to demonetize your videos. So anyone who just uploaded a video in the ~12 years between YouTube having monetization and monetization being mandated got ads put on their work retroactively and without permission.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  There's a difference between being monetized (i.e. creator gets money) and YT running ads. So are you saying that YT used to only run ads on monetized videos, and recently they started running ads on non-monetized videos too? Because I remember starting to see ads on clearly non-monetized videos quite a long time ago, like 2014. And it doesn't seem like a big deal; they didn't promise to host your video without ads forever, nor is that a reasonable expectation.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Your memory might be hazy. YouTube made an explicit ToS change on June 1st, 2021 in order to allow them to monetize non-partner videos. They call this the "right to monetize": https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/110289140/updates-to-youtube%E2%80%99s-terms-of-service-june-%E2%80%9821 https://support.google.com/youtube/thread/110289140/updates-...

kmeisthax 3y ago

There's several instances in which creators deliberately uploaded videos unmonetized under the understanding that this would comply with some kind of noncommercial licensing requirement[0] (e.g. NCommander's video on the MSWord 1.0 source). Such uploads are now retroactively illegal unless you're already partnered, since YouTube now only allows partners to disable monetization. To be slightly fair to YouTube, they never added NC clauses to their Creative Commons declaration support, but I doubt that was evidence of a 10-year plan to demand monetization. But on the other hand, they also made a huge stink about keeping Partner status out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it. That move now retroactively looks like YouTube trying to front-run smaller creators on ad revenue, especially if something they make goes 'viral' before they can make partner. [0] For the purpose of this comment let's pretend that 'not monetized' satisfies whatever flimsy 'noncommercial' license declaration exists

timeon 3y ago

This scam has happened with many sites and apps (Instagram). Build community and then sell it.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

doctorpangloss 3y ago

Hmm... the biggest category on YouTube is music, which until a colossal lawsuit was all pirated. It has and was built on piracy. Maybe you odn't believe me because it's "different" in your opinion today. Look anywhere else in the world, it's piracy dude. For example, here's a search for "seinfeld s01e03" for video lengths 10-30m on Bilibili: https://search.bilibili.com/all?keyword=seinfeld+s01e03&from_source=webtop_search&spm_id_from=333.1007&search_source=5&duration=2 https://search.bilibili.com/all?keyword=seinfeld+s01e03&from... I don't know. On the one hand, end users take from Google by blocking ads. On the other, Google takes from creators through piracy. At the end of the day, the problem with video is the lack of business innovation that's anywhere near comparable to games.

tomrod 3y ago
> It has and was built on piracy. Shiver me timbers, buckaroo. Won't someone think about the digital robber baron tycoons? Most of the internet was built with public dollars and content is engaged with (not necessarily hosted) generally non-commercially. If we look at total harm, content users tend to get the worst of it either by having to wade through malevolent ads or user hostile design. Yet, we collectively put up with it because we recognize the Internet is not a zero-sum game. Tay-tay is making enough money from the free marketing channels the Internet enables, she doesn't need more from a Youtube stream.