6 ms·

We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.

by jona-f 3y ago

mvdtnz 3y ago
You're just rationalising. You know it's not a defensible position.
- Spivak 3y ago
  Sure it is, you're not even involved in the transaction. Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it. USPS is funded by ads going through the mail and I throw them straight in the trash without remorse. I bet you do too. Bet you don't feel guilt about going to the bathroom or fast-forwarding your DVR during commercials either. Ad space is sold on the possibility that someone will see it and you don't owe anyone valuable ad real-estate. It's wild how many people unironically think "drink verification can" is in any way acceptable.
  - gruez 3y ago
    > Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it Just because someone has an internet connection doesn't mean google has to serve them videos, either.
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Such is their prerogative. You'll notice that nowhere are people saying "Google should have to give you a switch to turn off ads for free." You act like that's a gotcha when "I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing" is the state I'm arguing for.
    - frumper 3y ago
      I’m confused. Google doesn’t serve every internet connection videos. The serve people asking for videos.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    At no point did I suggest people should be forced to view ads.
  - rerdavies 3y ago
    I can't actually remember the last time I got mail-mail.
- unshavedyak 3y ago
  I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend that Youtube doesn't feel exploitative in the corporate behavior here. Especially considering the data they're stealing from me, harvesting and selling, etc. Ie show me the ads i'm missing, and let me pay for the view. It would be what, $3|5|7/m or w/e in value? Instead they're trying to strongarm you into an upcharge of $14/m for additional services. Show me the data they're harvesting from my viewing patterns and the added revenue they're getting from that. Tie that into my "cost" each month and reducing how much i owe. But of course they won't do that. Because this isn't an exchange. This isn't a service we're paying for, it's a data harvest where they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is scummy in the same way that my music software, Spotify, is trying to expand revenue streams and shoving more crap (podcasts, audio books, etc) down my throat. If Youtube isn't going to try and play fair then i'd rather leave (and will) than pay them.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium
    - kemayo 3y ago
      Not the person you're responding to, but from how they phrased it I suspect they'd be annoyed that they're having to pay for YouTube Music as part of Premium.
      - unshavedyak 3y ago
        Exactly. I want to pay for what i'm supposed to be paying for. Not subscribe to extra services i don't use.
  - throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
    You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.
- xuhu 3y ago
  It sure is. I'm still watching their ads on every other site, but youtube ads for gambling and soda that interrupt while I'm watching someone talk about Bezier curves ? Na-ah.
gruez 3y ago
All this performative righteousness is only going to end up hurting your cause in the long term. If a major site offers an ad-free option, and people refuse to take it, what does it tell the executives? What does it tell other publishers who are considering their monetization options? How do you think a business should respond to users that neither refuse to watch ads nor pay, can't be bargained with (see above), but nonetheless think they should be entitled to service? Companies aren't owed a viable business model, but consumers aren't owed a free service either.
- LtWorf 3y ago
  They still mine your data…
  - frumper 3y ago
    Are you complaining about ads or data? The only way to avoid giving them data is to not use them, which also lets you avoid their ads and you don’t need a subscription. Simple solution.
- bsaul 3y ago
  the amount of ads on youtube has grown exponentially and i highly doubt this was because of profitability issues.
  - Wildliferanger 3y ago
    The problem is higher than zero intrest rates the free money dried up where before all the platforms were chasing infinte growth and free money meant they could run deficts as long as they grew they now need to make a profit now that debt costs money plus investor cash got sucked away to Bonds, CDs, and money market accounts giving a safe 5-7%. This is why every service went to shit at the same time in the past year.
  - missedthecue 3y ago
    In a hypothetical world without adblockers, wouldn't YouTube need to show a lower amount of ads per person to make the same amount of revenue?
mfru 3y ago
i love paying for nebula and support my favorite creators there and blocking everything else on youtube

We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.

by jona-f 3y ago

We treat google how they treat us, as exploitive as possible.

mvdtnz 3y ago

You're just rationalising. You know it's not a defensible position.

Spivak 3y ago
Sure it is, you're not even involved in the transaction. Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it. USPS is funded by ads going through the mail and I throw them straight in the trash without remorse. I bet you do too. Bet you don't feel guilt about going to the bathroom or fast-forwarding your DVR during commercials either. Ad space is sold on the possibility that someone will see it and you don't owe anyone valuable ad real-estate. It's wild how many people unironically think "drink verification can" is in any way acceptable.
- gruez 3y ago
  > Just because someone pays Google to show an ad doesn't mean you have to look at it Just because someone has an internet connection doesn't mean google has to serve them videos, either.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    Such is their prerogative. You'll notice that nowhere are people saying "Google should have to give you a switch to turn off ads for free." You act like that's a gotcha when "I owe you nothing, you owe me nothing" is the state I'm arguing for.
  - frumper 3y ago
    I’m confused. Google doesn’t serve every internet connection videos. The serve people asking for videos.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  At no point did I suggest people should be forced to view ads.
- rerdavies 3y ago
  I can't actually remember the last time I got mail-mail.
unshavedyak 3y ago
I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend that Youtube doesn't feel exploitative in the corporate behavior here. Especially considering the data they're stealing from me, harvesting and selling, etc. Ie show me the ads i'm missing, and let me pay for the view. It would be what, $3|5|7/m or w/e in value? Instead they're trying to strongarm you into an upcharge of $14/m for additional services. Show me the data they're harvesting from my viewing patterns and the added revenue they're getting from that. Tie that into my "cost" each month and reducing how much i owe. But of course they won't do that. Because this isn't an exchange. This isn't a service we're paying for, it's a data harvest where they want to have their cake and eat it too. This is scummy in the same way that my music software, Spotify, is trying to expand revenue streams and shoving more crap (podcasts, audio books, etc) down my throat. If Youtube isn't going to try and play fair then i'd rather leave (and will) than pay them.
- gruez 3y ago
  >I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium
  - kemayo 3y ago
    Not the person you're responding to, but from how they phrased it I suspect they'd be annoyed that they're having to pay for YouTube Music as part of Premium.
    - unshavedyak 3y ago
      Exactly. I want to pay for what i'm supposed to be paying for. Not subscribe to extra services i don't use.
- throw_nbvc1234 3y ago
  You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.
xuhu 3y ago
It sure is. I'm still watching their ads on every other site, but youtube ads for gambling and soda that interrupt while I'm watching someone talk about Bezier curves ? Na-ah.

gruez 3y ago

All this performative righteousness is only going to end up hurting your cause in the long term. If a major site offers an ad-free option, and people refuse to take it, what does it tell the executives? What does it tell other publishers who are considering their monetization options? How do you think a business should respond to users that neither refuse to watch ads nor pay, can't be bargained with (see above), but nonetheless think they should be entitled to service? Companies aren't owed a viable business model, but consumers aren't owed a free service either.

LtWorf 3y ago
They still mine your data…
- frumper 3y ago
  Are you complaining about ads or data? The only way to avoid giving them data is to not use them, which also lets you avoid their ads and you don’t need a subscription. Simple solution.
bsaul 3y ago
the amount of ads on youtube has grown exponentially and i highly doubt this was because of profitability issues.
- Wildliferanger 3y ago
  The problem is higher than zero intrest rates the free money dried up where before all the platforms were chasing infinte growth and free money meant they could run deficts as long as they grew they now need to make a profit now that debt costs money plus investor cash got sucked away to Bonds, CDs, and money market accounts giving a safe 5-7%. This is why every service went to shit at the same time in the past year.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  In a hypothetical world without adblockers, wouldn't YouTube need to show a lower amount of ads per person to make the same amount of revenue?

mfru 3y ago

i love paying for nebula and support my favorite creators there and blocking everything else on youtube