4 ms·

Honestly, I don't think preventing ad blockers is abusive. Hosting videos for free is simply not sustainable. It does not work. We aren't entitled to getting ev

Honestly, I don't think preventing ad blockers is abusive. Hosting videos for free is simply not sustainable. It does not work. We aren't entitled to getting everything on the internet for free.

bboygravity 3y ago
Bittorrent would like to have a word.
infecto 3y ago
I am in the same boat. They are providing a service. Ads suck so I pay for. The evil angle is tiring. If they are so evil why even use YouTube at all.
- eastbound 3y ago
  Because we’re addicted? I’m serious, but philosophically, the onus is clearly on us to get rid of our addiction. But Youtube is a quasi-monopoly of random micro-conferences. Nebula and Vimeo aren’t on the same market. So basically we specifically like Youtube. But I’d never pay Google after what they did to James Damore.
epgui 3y ago
If Costco decided they wanted to make a profit on their 1.50$ hot dogs and cranked the price up to 3$, they would lose a ton of goodwill and many of their loyal customers would be upset. Google isn’t exactly struggling to make ends meet. They seem perfectly okay to be losing money on search. YouTube is no different.
- bombcar 3y ago
  The hot dogs are getting more and more noticeable as everything else there seems majorly overpriced. $10 for some half sandwich?
  - kemayo 3y ago
    It's a tangent, but that $10 roast beef sandwich is gigantic. I was surprised when they rolled out such an expensive food court item, and so I bought it, and I couldn't finish it. I took half of it home to eat later. I am not a light eater.
  - frumper 3y ago
    Pizza is also cheap.
- paddim8 3y ago
  We don't want them to be losing money because that prevents competition since no one can compete with that. It's a monopolistic practice.
mindslight 3y ago
Then why did Youtube/Google start hosting videos for free? And continue to do so for so long, if it was "unsustainable" ? That was the deal they offered, and that people bought into. Now that they've achieved the soft lock in of network effects, we should accept them completely altering those terms? In the antitrust sense, this is called dumping.

Honestly, I don't think preventing ad blockers is abusive. Hosting videos for free is simply not sustainable. It does not work. We aren't entitled to getting everything on the internet for free.

bboygravity 3y ago

Bittorrent would like to have a word.

infecto 3y ago

I am in the same boat. They are providing a service. Ads suck so I pay for. The evil angle is tiring. If they are so evil why even use YouTube at all.

eastbound 3y ago
Because we’re addicted? I’m serious, but philosophically, the onus is clearly on us to get rid of our addiction. But Youtube is a quasi-monopoly of random micro-conferences. Nebula and Vimeo aren’t on the same market. So basically we specifically like Youtube. But I’d never pay Google after what they did to James Damore.

epgui 3y ago

If Costco decided they wanted to make a profit on their 1.50$ hot dogs and cranked the price up to 3$, they would lose a ton of goodwill and many of their loyal customers would be upset. Google isn’t exactly struggling to make ends meet. They seem perfectly okay to be losing money on search. YouTube is no different.

bombcar 3y ago
The hot dogs are getting more and more noticeable as everything else there seems majorly overpriced. $10 for some half sandwich?
- kemayo 3y ago
  It's a tangent, but that $10 roast beef sandwich is gigantic. I was surprised when they rolled out such an expensive food court item, and so I bought it, and I couldn't finish it. I took half of it home to eat later. I am not a light eater.
- frumper 3y ago
  Pizza is also cheap.
paddim8 3y ago
We don't want them to be losing money because that prevents competition since no one can compete with that. It's a monopolistic practice.

mindslight 3y ago

Then why did Youtube/Google start hosting videos for free? And continue to do so for so long, if it was "unsustainable" ? That was the deal they offered, and that people bought into. Now that they've achieved the soft lock in of network effects, we should accept them completely altering those terms? In the antitrust sense, this is called dumping.