8 ms·

Neither side is wrong. Youtube has every right to try as hard as it can to get users to view ads. And users have every right to try as hard as they can to block

Neither side is wrong. Youtube has every right to try as hard as it can to get users to view ads. And users have every right to try as hard as they can to block those ads. I don't have a right to ad-free youtube, but I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. If I (and people like me) are abundant enough and succesful enough, then youtube and other services will be forced to abandon an ad-supported model. I'm personally ok with that. But as long as they are attempting to pursue ad revenue, I'm going to try and avoid those ads, for a host of reasons.

ketzo 3y ago
I think this is a great take, with one exception: I think the loss of (free) ad-supported YouTube would be a devastating loss for the world at large.
- darthrupert 3y ago
  How's that? Its algorithm is not exactly making the world a better place. It's filled with propaganda from all corners of the political spectrum with about zero responsibility. But there is also TikTok, which is even worse. So yeah, in that way you could be right. If only we could pay for the things we use, and only that.
  - crop_rotation 3y ago
    YouTube has been such a big boon to the world in helping people learn. The amount of people who have learnt several skills from YouTube enabling them to make a living is very very large. I know several people who had non STEM education and taught them CS via YouTube and went on to have good SWE careers. Whole of MIT OCS is hosted on Youtube. All of Khan Academy videos are also hosted on Youtube.
    - trimethylpurine 3y ago
      They could be hosted elsewhere. Why should free education material that is already funded by donations be locked behind ad based hosting? Hosting is not that expensive if you're using only those services. Especially in the countries where it's mostly being used.
      - crop_rotation 3y ago
        Hosting is very expensive, e.g https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-creators-price-increase https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr... That is why almost nobody bothers to do it themselves outside of big tech.
        meindnoch 3y ago
        No it's not. Just use PeerTube.
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        No you don't. There's Bunny CDN though
        trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I've personally run servers for several businesses in the streaming education space. And one business that serves over 40,000 concurrent connections. The entire business fits into 1.5 racks at a local DC. The monthly cost is under $5,000 for the service, space, and cooling. There is an initial cost to purchase some servers, switches, etc. I'd be surprised if Khan academy had much more than that many active connections. It's really just not that expensive, no matter how much AWS wants to sell you on that falsehood.
      - ketzo 3y ago
        > not that expensive yeah, but it’s hard to overstate how much less expensive “free” is than anything else. I don’t know how you do free video hosting for the entire world without YouTube’s model.
  - remus 3y ago
    > How's that? Its algorithm is not exactly making the world a better place. It's filled with propaganda from all corners of the political spectrum with about zero responsibility. I think this is true, but youtube is also a platform where people can share video content with a big chunk of the internet connected world for zero money. I think that's pretty cool, particularly when I think about all the small accounts I follow whose content just wouldn't be available without youtube (or a similar platform).
- Cilvic 3y ago
  I agree that GP is a great take on the situation. I'm less sure that humanity is incapable of finding another way to foster the creativity and the education/entertainment value the world gets out of youtube. I'd love to see us try and only go back to advertising if that is indeed the only/best way. Yes ad-supported YT is "free" of direct cash payment, but how much do we (society) "pay" in form of thoughts that we wouldn't have had where it not for an advertiser to force it onto us. I sometimes wonder if advertising is a kind of corruption and will be outlawed / considered inhumane at some point in the future.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  It would be a great benefit to society if it weren't free. It would stimulate competition in the space, allow varied ideas to thrive as different media ecosystems and market research models could flourish. The few entities in control of marketing at large are in control of what free thought is perceived to be acceptable or preferred in society regardless of whether or not it reflects any truth about how we actually feel about anything. The above causes people with extreme ideas to feel a sense of entitlement towards specific political stances which breeds intolerance towards opposing views, which leads towards greater political divisiveness. All of those things are in opposition to the values of a society based on sharing ideas and critically thinking about political issues.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  I'd pay for YT if it wasn't run by Google. Google wants to track me and sell the data and wants me to pay for it, and I'm not willing to be abused that badly.
  - leosanchez 3y ago
    I payed YouTube premium for 2 months. When they come up with Web Integrity API and Topics API I felt guilty. Felt like I am funding something bad
  - nmz 3y ago
    They'll have your data regardless if you pay for the service or not. And nothing is free, they need to pay for the service, now, if you do pay for the service they should enable more privacy.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      > if you do pay for the service they should enable more privacy. They're never doing that. I pay for ad-free Kagi search. I'd pay for an ad-free YT competitor. It would need to be run by someone other than Google though since I'd never trust them if they said they were giving me more privacy.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        For the educational side of YouTube, Nebula is great. The platform is very robust (it streams HD video at 2x speed with no difficulty), and it's run by the guy behind one of the largest educational youtube channels. Most of the great educational options are available there, and creators even strip out sponsorships before uploading, so you're getting a truly ad free experience.
  - mvdtnz 3y ago
    Google does not sell your data. Your data is their most valuable weapon, they use it to target ads. They wouldn't sell it for anything, it's more valuable to them to hold it.
- dantyti 3y ago
  It's not a given that YouTube would be lost. For example, I could see a world where it was collectively 'nationalized' by the UN, made ad-free and accessible to all.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Nah, rubbish. We've been able to do high quality video with P2P protocols for decades at this point. We have the bandwidth and the storage just sitting there. The only reason we haven't developed a system like YouTube is because we have YouTube. But take YouTube out of the picture and we're very ready for something like Wikipedia for videos. Let's not forget that just 20 years ago we didn't even have a free encyclopaedia. I'm assuming, of course, when you talk of a "devastating loss" you mean the educational videos not the brain rotting shite like "Mr Beast" or hours upon hours of gameplay footage.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    And how do creators get paid for the videos shared by P2P?
    - globular-toast 3y ago
      They don't. I don't want paid for content. If you will only make a video because you want to get paid for it then please, don't make the video. Many people will make videos without expecting payment. See YouTube, for example.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        > I don't want paid for content. Then the solution for you is extremely simple: Do not go to youtube.com Then you won't have to be bothered by any videos that people made with the expectation of being paid. But what are you doing in a discussion about YouTube? You're free to make as many videos as you please and share them by P2P. YouTube is a partner for video creators for distributing their videos. You are not in that partnership in any way.
        ilkke 3y ago
        You are offering a "solution" to a sentence taken out of the larger context. Poster is arguing for a platform for videos that are not made for payment.
tapoxi 3y ago
But you can pay for YouTube Premium, they already have an alternative to an ad supported business model.
- microtonal 3y ago
  I have YouTube Premium. But I worry that once a substantial portion of the user base goes Premium, they'll also start to slip in ads. I think the ad business has made everyone who cares paranoid.
  - FullstakBlogger 3y ago
    This is such a huge downside with subscription services in general. The product itself can change right under your nose and there's nothing you can do about it but cancel. First I was paying to filter out content, now I'm paying for access? That's a totally different thing that I didn't agree to. If you frame it in a different context it sounds ridiculous. "Actually we're getting out of the video streaming business and just mailing you postcards that we think look neat. Still charging you the same rate every month, though."
  - notacoward 3y ago
    There's plenty of precedent for this. Amazon has said they'll be introducing ads on Prime Video, where everyone has already paid for the service. I've seen ads on other already-paid-for services too. The simple fact is that business people will always want more ads everywhere, no matter how much it degrades the customer experience, because extra revenue is easier to measure than customer disgust. In their personal lives they probably hate ads as much as we do, but a fatter paycheck can buy a lot of hypocrisy.
    - charcircuit 3y ago
      Prime Video will still have an ad free tier. Having a cheaper tier that is subsidized with ads allows for more people to be able to afford it.
      - 3y ago
dutchCourage 3y ago
> I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. I agree with your statement but I'm not sure how it applies to ads. I hate ads as much as the next person, but blocking them is kind of like using the service and refusing to pay for it. There are two proper ways to not see ads on Youtube. You can either pay for Youtube premium, or not watch Youtube videos. There are legitimate reasons to block ads, like preventing tracking. But if you're blocking ads because you think the service you're using isn't worth letting them through, then don't use the service?
- lolinder 3y ago
  When a website actually tells me that I can't use it with an ad blocker, then I leave and don't come back. I don't have an ad-blocker-blocker-blocker, there's no technical barrier to detecting my ad blocker and responding accordingly. Until that happens, I'm forced to assume that the service actually does get enough value from my attention that it's not worth it to them to lose my business (such as it is), and I am certainly not going to voluntarily subject myself to ads that aren't actually essential.
bo1024 3y ago
These are good points. There is also a separate point to make, which is that YouTube doesn't (in large part) create videos, they "just" host other people's videos. YouTube wants to capture a bigger and bigger slice of the value created by interactions of other people with each other. There is a question of how much monetization YouTube "deserves" versus how much they are able to actually extract from people by being a de-facto monopoly. (This is Doctorow's "enshittification" process.)
- taftster 3y ago
  Right, that's an interesting point. On the one hand, Youtube itself doesn't add value. The creator uploads are the value. But if Youtube didn't monetize, presumably with the rise of the Youtube star, content creators wouldn't make enough money and would not publish there. So if you think of it from this angle, Youtube needs to go to war with ad blockers simply because their content creator, the users adding value, require them to do so. I also wonder if the rise of the "this video is sponsored by xyz" segments in people's videos have cause more harm. That ad money that is circumventing Youtube entirely, paid directly to the content producer. So Youtube might be "jealous" of this revenue and wants to encourage its content producers to let them run ads only? because it's easier that way?
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > I also wonder if the rise of the "this video is sponsored by xyz" segments in people's videos have cause more harm. That ad money that is circumventing Youtube entirely, paid directly to the content producer. So Youtube might be "jealous" of this revenue and wants to encourage its content producers to let them run ads only? I think this is exactly right, but what's missing from the story is that YouTube created this problem. I'm mostly on educational YouTube, and in that sector creators turned to sponsorships because the alternative was to constantly wonder whether your next video would be demonetized and lose out on all the revenue (while still showing ads on the videos!) Sponsorships are a much more predictable revenue stream. If YouTube wanted to support creators better, they wouldn't do it by adding more and more ads (to the point where my wife is finally approaching me to ask about ad block), they would do it by actually addressing creator concerns about reliability of their revenue streams.
paulcole 3y ago
> I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer I love this sort of mental gymnastics (the passive voice is a nice addition, too). You know you can win this game quickly by not visiting YouTube again or by paying YouTube $15/month? But no, it’s much better to exert your “rights” to try and control what gets sent to your computer. Also known as what you requested (since you know that ads are part of YouTube).
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  By that same logic I have no right to complain when a website uses 3rdparty trackers, or tries to run a monero client without my knowledge, because after all, I should have known they would do that ahead of time and not visited the site. But since I did, since I 'requested' it, I should just take everything I'm given and do exactly as told, mmhm. > But no, it’s much better to exert your “rights” to try and control what gets sent to your computer. But no, it's much better to exert your "rights" to try and control what gets run and shown on end-users computers. > Also known as what you requested I requested the video, nothing else. I don't care what you think I should or shouldn't know, I'm only trying to access the video and I am only requesting the video. If Youtube doesn't want me messing with the bytes they're sending me, they should not send them to me.
- MostlyStable 3y ago
  Firstly: I pay for youtube premium. Secondly, I honestly do not understand what gymnastics you think I am going through. I can view and control whatever content is sent to my computer. I do not have an obligation to allow any company to send arbitrary data or to force me to view it. Do you think it's similarly bad to skip around a video, when clearly the content creator meant for it to be a whole complete video? How about if I skip ahead when the content creator has a sponsor ad section? You are right, I could choose to just not go to youtube (or any other ad-supported website). Or, I could choose to view whatever portions of a website are made publicly available, in whatever way seems best to me. Just like I don't have to go to youtube, they don't have to make it publicly available. It goes both ways.
- Tao3300 3y ago
  That isn't mental gymnastics. > You know you can win this game quickly by not visiting YouTube again Yes. You understand perfectly. YT doesn't have to enshittify much further for this to be no loss.
WirelessGigabit 3y ago
> I don't have a right to ad-free youtube, but I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. Ars Technica used to autoplay a video every time you browsed on their website. I am (was) flabbergasted by the sheer amount of pretentiousness that they thought that was ok...

ketzo 3y ago

I think this is a great take, with one exception: I think the loss of (free) ad-supported YouTube would be a devastating loss for the world at large.

darthrupert 3y ago
How's that? Its algorithm is not exactly making the world a better place. It's filled with propaganda from all corners of the political spectrum with about zero responsibility. But there is also TikTok, which is even worse. So yeah, in that way you could be right. If only we could pay for the things we use, and only that.
- crop_rotation 3y ago
  YouTube has been such a big boon to the world in helping people learn. The amount of people who have learnt several skills from YouTube enabling them to make a living is very very large. I know several people who had non STEM education and taught them CS via YouTube and went on to have good SWE careers. Whole of MIT OCS is hosted on Youtube. All of Khan Academy videos are also hosted on Youtube.
  - trimethylpurine 3y ago
    They could be hosted elsewhere. Why should free education material that is already funded by donations be locked behind ad based hosting? Hosting is not that expensive if you're using only those services. Especially in the countries where it's mostly being used.
    - crop_rotation 3y ago
      Hosting is very expensive, e.g https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-creators-price-increase https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/15/22979126/vimeo-patreon-cr... That is why almost nobody bothers to do it themselves outside of big tech.
      - meindnoch 3y ago
        No it's not. Just use PeerTube.
        inemesitaffia 3y ago
        No you don't. There's Bunny CDN though
      - trimethylpurine 3y ago
        I've personally run servers for several businesses in the streaming education space. And one business that serves over 40,000 concurrent connections. The entire business fits into 1.5 racks at a local DC. The monthly cost is under $5,000 for the service, space, and cooling. There is an initial cost to purchase some servers, switches, etc. I'd be surprised if Khan academy had much more than that many active connections. It's really just not that expensive, no matter how much AWS wants to sell you on that falsehood.
    - ketzo 3y ago
      > not that expensive yeah, but it’s hard to overstate how much less expensive “free” is than anything else. I don’t know how you do free video hosting for the entire world without YouTube’s model.
- remus 3y ago
  > How's that? Its algorithm is not exactly making the world a better place. It's filled with propaganda from all corners of the political spectrum with about zero responsibility. I think this is true, but youtube is also a platform where people can share video content with a big chunk of the internet connected world for zero money. I think that's pretty cool, particularly when I think about all the small accounts I follow whose content just wouldn't be available without youtube (or a similar platform).
Cilvic 3y ago
I agree that GP is a great take on the situation. I'm less sure that humanity is incapable of finding another way to foster the creativity and the education/entertainment value the world gets out of youtube. I'd love to see us try and only go back to advertising if that is indeed the only/best way. Yes ad-supported YT is "free" of direct cash payment, but how much do we (society) "pay" in form of thoughts that we wouldn't have had where it not for an advertiser to force it onto us. I sometimes wonder if advertising is a kind of corruption and will be outlawed / considered inhumane at some point in the future.
trimethylpurine 3y ago
It would be a great benefit to society if it weren't free. It would stimulate competition in the space, allow varied ideas to thrive as different media ecosystems and market research models could flourish. The few entities in control of marketing at large are in control of what free thought is perceived to be acceptable or preferred in society regardless of whether or not it reflects any truth about how we actually feel about anything. The above causes people with extreme ideas to feel a sense of entitlement towards specific political stances which breeds intolerance towards opposing views, which leads towards greater political divisiveness. All of those things are in opposition to the values of a society based on sharing ideas and critically thinking about political issues.
lamontcg 3y ago
I'd pay for YT if it wasn't run by Google. Google wants to track me and sell the data and wants me to pay for it, and I'm not willing to be abused that badly.
- leosanchez 3y ago
  I payed YouTube premium for 2 months. When they come up with Web Integrity API and Topics API I felt guilty. Felt like I am funding something bad
- nmz 3y ago
  They'll have your data regardless if you pay for the service or not. And nothing is free, they need to pay for the service, now, if you do pay for the service they should enable more privacy.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > if you do pay for the service they should enable more privacy. They're never doing that. I pay for ad-free Kagi search. I'd pay for an ad-free YT competitor. It would need to be run by someone other than Google though since I'd never trust them if they said they were giving me more privacy.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      For the educational side of YouTube, Nebula is great. The platform is very robust (it streams HD video at 2x speed with no difficulty), and it's run by the guy behind one of the largest educational youtube channels. Most of the great educational options are available there, and creators even strip out sponsorships before uploading, so you're getting a truly ad free experience.
- mvdtnz 3y ago
  Google does not sell your data. Your data is their most valuable weapon, they use it to target ads. They wouldn't sell it for anything, it's more valuable to them to hold it.
dantyti 3y ago
It's not a given that YouTube would be lost. For example, I could see a world where it was collectively 'nationalized' by the UN, made ad-free and accessible to all.
globular-toast 3y ago
Nah, rubbish. We've been able to do high quality video with P2P protocols for decades at this point. We have the bandwidth and the storage just sitting there. The only reason we haven't developed a system like YouTube is because we have YouTube. But take YouTube out of the picture and we're very ready for something like Wikipedia for videos. Let's not forget that just 20 years ago we didn't even have a free encyclopaedia. I'm assuming, of course, when you talk of a "devastating loss" you mean the educational videos not the brain rotting shite like "Mr Beast" or hours upon hours of gameplay footage.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  And how do creators get paid for the videos shared by P2P?
  - globular-toast 3y ago
    They don't. I don't want paid for content. If you will only make a video because you want to get paid for it then please, don't make the video. Many people will make videos without expecting payment. See YouTube, for example.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      > I don't want paid for content. Then the solution for you is extremely simple: Do not go to youtube.com Then you won't have to be bothered by any videos that people made with the expectation of being paid. But what are you doing in a discussion about YouTube? You're free to make as many videos as you please and share them by P2P. YouTube is a partner for video creators for distributing their videos. You are not in that partnership in any way.
      - ilkke 3y ago
        You are offering a "solution" to a sentence taken out of the larger context. Poster is arguing for a platform for videos that are not made for payment.

tapoxi 3y ago

But you can pay for YouTube Premium, they already have an alternative to an ad supported business model.

microtonal 3y ago
I have YouTube Premium. But I worry that once a substantial portion of the user base goes Premium, they'll also start to slip in ads. I think the ad business has made everyone who cares paranoid.
- FullstakBlogger 3y ago
  This is such a huge downside with subscription services in general. The product itself can change right under your nose and there's nothing you can do about it but cancel. First I was paying to filter out content, now I'm paying for access? That's a totally different thing that I didn't agree to. If you frame it in a different context it sounds ridiculous. "Actually we're getting out of the video streaming business and just mailing you postcards that we think look neat. Still charging you the same rate every month, though."
- notacoward 3y ago
  There's plenty of precedent for this. Amazon has said they'll be introducing ads on Prime Video, where everyone has already paid for the service. I've seen ads on other already-paid-for services too. The simple fact is that business people will always want more ads everywhere, no matter how much it degrades the customer experience, because extra revenue is easier to measure than customer disgust. In their personal lives they probably hate ads as much as we do, but a fatter paycheck can buy a lot of hypocrisy.
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    Prime Video will still have an ad free tier. Having a cheaper tier that is subsidized with ads allows for more people to be able to afford it.
    - 3y ago

dutchCourage 3y ago

> I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. I agree with your statement but I'm not sure how it applies to ads. I hate ads as much as the next person, but blocking them is kind of like using the service and refusing to pay for it. There are two proper ways to not see ads on Youtube. You can either pay for Youtube premium, or not watch Youtube videos. There are legitimate reasons to block ads, like preventing tracking. But if you're blocking ads because you think the service you're using isn't worth letting them through, then don't use the service?

lolinder 3y ago
When a website actually tells me that I can't use it with an ad blocker, then I leave and don't come back. I don't have an ad-blocker-blocker-blocker, there's no technical barrier to detecting my ad blocker and responding accordingly. Until that happens, I'm forced to assume that the service actually does get enough value from my attention that it's not worth it to them to lose my business (such as it is), and I am certainly not going to voluntarily subject myself to ads that aren't actually essential.

bo1024 3y ago

These are good points. There is also a separate point to make, which is that YouTube doesn't (in large part) create videos, they "just" host other people's videos. YouTube wants to capture a bigger and bigger slice of the value created by interactions of other people with each other. There is a question of how much monetization YouTube "deserves" versus how much they are able to actually extract from people by being a de-facto monopoly. (This is Doctorow's "enshittification" process.)

taftster 3y ago
Right, that's an interesting point. On the one hand, Youtube itself doesn't add value. The creator uploads are the value. But if Youtube didn't monetize, presumably with the rise of the Youtube star, content creators wouldn't make enough money and would not publish there. So if you think of it from this angle, Youtube needs to go to war with ad blockers simply because their content creator, the users adding value, require them to do so. I also wonder if the rise of the "this video is sponsored by xyz" segments in people's videos have cause more harm. That ad money that is circumventing Youtube entirely, paid directly to the content producer. So Youtube might be "jealous" of this revenue and wants to encourage its content producers to let them run ads only? because it's easier that way?
- lolinder 3y ago
  > I also wonder if the rise of the "this video is sponsored by xyz" segments in people's videos have cause more harm. That ad money that is circumventing Youtube entirely, paid directly to the content producer. So Youtube might be "jealous" of this revenue and wants to encourage its content producers to let them run ads only? I think this is exactly right, but what's missing from the story is that YouTube created this problem. I'm mostly on educational YouTube, and in that sector creators turned to sponsorships because the alternative was to constantly wonder whether your next video would be demonetized and lose out on all the revenue (while still showing ads on the videos!) Sponsorships are a much more predictable revenue stream. If YouTube wanted to support creators better, they wouldn't do it by adding more and more ads (to the point where my wife is finally approaching me to ask about ad block), they would do it by actually addressing creator concerns about reliability of their revenue streams.

paulcole 3y ago

> I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer I love this sort of mental gymnastics (the passive voice is a nice addition, too). You know you can win this game quickly by not visiting YouTube again or by paying YouTube $15/month? But no, it’s much better to exert your “rights” to try and control what gets sent to your computer. Also known as what you requested (since you know that ads are part of YouTube).

genocidicbunny 3y ago
By that same logic I have no right to complain when a website uses 3rdparty trackers, or tries to run a monero client without my knowledge, because after all, I should have known they would do that ahead of time and not visited the site. But since I did, since I 'requested' it, I should just take everything I'm given and do exactly as told, mmhm. > But no, it’s much better to exert your “rights” to try and control what gets sent to your computer. But no, it's much better to exert your "rights" to try and control what gets run and shown on end-users computers. > Also known as what you requested I requested the video, nothing else. I don't care what you think I should or shouldn't know, I'm only trying to access the video and I am only requesting the video. If Youtube doesn't want me messing with the bytes they're sending me, they should not send them to me.
MostlyStable 3y ago
Firstly: I pay for youtube premium. Secondly, I honestly do not understand what gymnastics you think I am going through. I can view and control whatever content is sent to my computer. I do not have an obligation to allow any company to send arbitrary data or to force me to view it. Do you think it's similarly bad to skip around a video, when clearly the content creator meant for it to be a whole complete video? How about if I skip ahead when the content creator has a sponsor ad section? You are right, I could choose to just not go to youtube (or any other ad-supported website). Or, I could choose to view whatever portions of a website are made publicly available, in whatever way seems best to me. Just like I don't have to go to youtube, they don't have to make it publicly available. It goes both ways.
Tao3300 3y ago
That isn't mental gymnastics. > You know you can win this game quickly by not visiting YouTube again Yes. You understand perfectly. YT doesn't have to enshittify much further for this to be no loss.

WirelessGigabit 3y ago

> I don't have a right to ad-free youtube, but I do have every right to try and control what things get sent to and viewed on my computer. Ars Technica used to autoplay a video every time you browsed on their website. I am (was) flabbergasted by the sheer amount of pretentiousness that they thought that was ok...