4 ms·

At a certain scale, you can no longer say "it's just business". YouTube is where people go to post and upload videos. YouTube has a dominant place in the marke

At a certain scale, you can no longer say "it's just business". YouTube is where people go to post and upload videos. YouTube has a dominant place in the market and in people's minds. Does it cost money to run? Yes. Does Google deserve to have those costs covered? Yes. Should Google be entitled to abuse their dominant position? Certainly not. I do feel bad for who high-quality creators are not able to make ends meet, but I have zero sympathy for a business the size of Google.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
> Does it cost money to run? Yes. Does Google deserve to have those costs covered? Yes Those are not the terms of the implicit (and somewhat explicit) deal Google/YT originally offered. Any and every net pundit and idiot pointed out at the start that any video hosting system that became as successful as YT said it wanted to be (and has become) would cost a fortune to provide. YT could have said from the start "once this scales beyond <small scale> we'll need to charge <X> because the only alternative to that are ads". But they never said that, they just gave us ads even if we didn't want them.
lelanthran 3y ago
> At a certain scale, you can no longer say "it's just business". Of course you can. Me blocking ads is just business. It's nothing personal. Them blocking my blocking is also just business. Me blocking their blocking is likewise just business. Either they'll give up or I'll give up. Whichever happens, that content will make less money. IOW, the money that content is making right now is exactly what the market will bear. If too many people stop watching because they can't block the ads then content producers have to decide to migrate, to stay and make exactly what their product is worth, or to simply stop producing. It's purely business for all parties involved, including the product i.e. viewers.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

> Does it cost money to run? Yes. Does Google deserve to have those costs covered? Yes Those are not the terms of the implicit (and somewhat explicit) deal Google/YT originally offered. Any and every net pundit and idiot pointed out at the start that any video hosting system that became as successful as YT said it wanted to be (and has become) would cost a fortune to provide. YT could have said from the start "once this scales beyond <small scale> we'll need to charge <X> because the only alternative to that are ads". But they never said that, they just gave us ads even if we didn't want them.

lelanthran 3y ago

> At a certain scale, you can no longer say "it's just business". Of course you can. Me blocking ads is just business. It's nothing personal. Them blocking my blocking is also just business. Me blocking their blocking is likewise just business. Either they'll give up or I'll give up. Whichever happens, that content will make less money. IOW, the money that content is making right now is exactly what the market will bear. If too many people stop watching because they can't block the ads then content producers have to decide to migrate, to stay and make exactly what their product is worth, or to simply stop producing. It's purely business for all parties involved, including the product i.e. viewers.