4 ms·
If you're neither paying YouTube any money nor watching their ads, meaning you're a pure money sink, why should they care about your goodwill?
by Analemma_ 3y ago
If you're neither paying YouTube any money nor watching their ads, meaning you're a pure money sink, why should they care about your goodwill?
- hanniabu 3y agoThat viewpoint will extend to others
- CuriouslyC 3y agoIf I'm referring thousands of people to YouTube, and I stop doing that while simultaneously joining the chorus of anti-YT sentiment on the internet, their bottom line should care.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jamespo 3y agogood job you're not doing that then!
- xboxnolifes 3y agoAt this point I don't think anyone over the age of 3 doesn't know what YouTube is. I don't think much referring is happening by you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hombre_fatal 3y agoWow, someone actually playing the "you won't get a dime from me because you'll get something more valuable: exposure!" card against Youtube.
- willk 3y agoI'd guess those people have friends that they share videos and shorts with. Those people might want to pay for premium or watch ads.
- Analemma_ 3y agoThis is precisely isomorphic to the logic of not paying freelancers because "you're getting exposure", which every freelancer knows is bullshit.
- sroussey 3y agoReminds me of DJT stuffing his caterer for his wedding — “but you will be able to tell potential clients that you catered my wedding!” — which was no help at all when she had to pay bills for the food and staff.
- frebdo 3y agoBecause you're an active user and thus help make the site "popular". We're seeing on Twitter what happens when management starts ignoring this basic logic of the internet.
- adrr 3y agoTwitter pissed off their advertisers by pulling back content moderation. That is their biggest problem in terms of cash flow.
- hotnfresh 3y agoThey're currently forcing logged-in users to share screenshots if they want to share something with non-logged-in friends and preserve any context whatsoever (you can no longer see replies, or what a xit was in response to, if you're not logged in—all you can see is a single xit). Search also doesn't work anymore if you're not logged in, and if you visit a user's page, their xits are ordered by some even-more-nonsensical-than-usual algo that puts years-old xits near the top. The site's basically totally unusable if you don't have an account. This may be making some metric (account signups, presumably?) go up, but sure seems risky to me.
- jsnell 3y agoOn Twitter and Reddit, the users most affected were also the people providing most value to the platform (tweets, reddit submissions, discussion, moderation). They're fairly symmetric platforms. On YT, the people providing the value are the content creators. That is the same content creators who get a revenue share from ads and premium. They're the ones who benefit the most from blocking ad blockers. The people watching videos with ad blockers (and sponsor block)? They're not providing anything in exchange, to the platform or the creators.
- sircastor 3y agoNobody using the site is a pure money sink. Every video watched, in what order, on what topics, is data contributed to the machine. The fact that you’re blocking ads is even useful information.
- meiraleal 3y agoThat's the price they pay for being ubiquitous. The alternative is to lose a good % of their userbase to a competitor that can make a better use of this audience.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI occasionally buy content from Youtube (primarily complete episodes of various series, occasionally a movie or movie rental).
- serf 3y agoa) there is no such user that is a pure money sink. Even without a subscription and all the ad blockers in the world they're still leaving a valuable data trail. b) YT is a propaganda engine, too. It serves that end to allow nearly-unlimited membership.