4 ms·

Meh. Argument about company rights to be asshole works only until this company becomes monopoly.

by deely3 3y ago

akoboldfrying 3y ago
What part of charging for content makes them an "asshole"? I also think you're using the term "monopoly" incredibly loosely. I could host a video on my laptop right now, if I could be bothered setting up dynamic DNS and didn't expect much traffic. I could probably host it on my phone (certainly after jailbreaking it).
- deely3 3y ago
  You deliberatily twisted my comment, which means that you understanded my point, but don't want to discuss it and just want to attack it. Please express you dissatisfaction in a more constructive way. Please take part in discussion and be civil.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >You deliberatily twisted my comment I genuinely have no idea how you could come to this conclusion. What part of your original comment do you feel I "twisted"? >Please take part in discussion and be civil. What part of my comment was uncivil?
- selfhoster11 3y ago
  No part of charging for content makes someone an asshole. The part where your service is de facto the globally monopolistic video delivery and discovery platform, with nearly every creator being, more likely than not, present exclusively on your service (short of influencer mills like TikTok/Instagram), is the part that makes you an asshole if your enforce ads.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    I think there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether YouTube is a monopoly (I don't consider it to be), but how can you claim that it "enforces" ads when they provide the option of buying YouTube Premium instead? Assuming for the moment that it is a monopoly, to claim that YouTube is behaving badly, I think you would have to claim that both of its options (viewing with ads, viewing without ads and paying for YouTube Premium) were unfair, e.g., because the price of Premium is too high. But that is an argument that I never see being made. Is that the argument you are making?

Meh. Argument about company rights to be asshole works only until this company becomes monopoly.

by deely3 3y ago

Meh. Argument about company rights to be asshole works only until this company becomes monopoly.

What part of charging for content makes them an "asshole"? I also think you're using the term "monopoly" incredibly loosely. I could host a video on my laptop right now, if I could be bothered setting up dynamic DNS and didn't expect much traffic. I could probably host it on my phone (certainly after jailbreaking it).

deely3 3y ago
You deliberatily twisted my comment, which means that you understanded my point, but don't want to discuss it and just want to attack it. Please express you dissatisfaction in a more constructive way. Please take part in discussion and be civil.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >You deliberatily twisted my comment I genuinely have no idea how you could come to this conclusion. What part of your original comment do you feel I "twisted"? >Please take part in discussion and be civil. What part of my comment was uncivil?
selfhoster11 3y ago
No part of charging for content makes someone an asshole. The part where your service is de facto the globally monopolistic video delivery and discovery platform, with nearly every creator being, more likely than not, present exclusively on your service (short of influencer mills like TikTok/Instagram), is the part that makes you an asshole if your enforce ads.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  I think there's a legitimate debate to be had about whether YouTube is a monopoly (I don't consider it to be), but how can you claim that it "enforces" ads when they provide the option of buying YouTube Premium instead? Assuming for the moment that it is a monopoly, to claim that YouTube is behaving badly, I think you would have to claim that both of its options (viewing with ads, viewing without ads and paying for YouTube Premium) were unfair, e.g., because the price of Premium is too high. But that is an argument that I never see being made. Is that the argument you are making?