6 ms·

Chances are it's just to install a BETTER adblocker...but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here. They could still make a fairly profitable site and compete

Chances are it's just to install a BETTER adblocker...but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here. They could still make a fairly profitable site and compete based on features and usability, but instead they are maximizing their revenue at the cost of all else. They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: choking th life out of viewers with too many ads for short-term gain at the cost of longevity. Frankly, in the past years, nothing makes me more sick that the pure greed of tech companies doing things just because they can, and Google and its employees are at the top of that list of those who make me wretch.

repelsteeltje 3y ago
I see what you mean about Google's greed. But to be perfectly honoust there is some greed on our behalf as well. The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/ https://peertube.tv/) It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site. It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe, It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting. Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date. It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
  - ddorian43 3y ago
    > would be quite nice, sort of like Medium The worst example possible.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Medium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
      - iamgpt 3y ago
        Medium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
  - jefftk 3y ago
    I don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Well, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        Or people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
- simbolit 3y ago
  You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value... And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
    - slowmovintarget 3y ago
      The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
    They also get all of your information/habits/etc.. It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?
      - simbolit 3y ago
        in the individual case, it's ads or blackmail (and because the latter is illegal, Google isn't doing it). in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
- jaimehrubiks 3y ago
  Not sure why you're being down voted. I love ad blockers and that's my go-to when it comes to Google. But I think it's fair for them to offer YouTube in exchange of either privacy, ads or premium subscription
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    It is naive to think they don't collect data from their YT premium users. Plus, for free users they show ads and collect data.
mrweasel 3y ago
> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
  - IgorPartola 3y ago
    Why not Vimeo?
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      It is a good option.
      - taylodl 3y ago
        Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads? Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads? The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it. The cost to run YouTube is enormous.

repelsteeltje 3y ago

I see what you mean about Google's greed. But to be perfectly honoust there is some greed on our behalf as well. The "contract" with YouTube being: don't pay us in $$$, give us your privacy — by attempting to use without revealing our privacy gold we're somewhat free loading, being greedy. It would be better to reject the "contract" and find different ways to access the content without relying on Google's "free" distribution infrastructure. There are alternatives (like https://peertube.tv/ https://peertube.tv/) It's a sad content distribution and discoverability (especially video) has become so centralized.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Yes, I do agree with you. It is not just Google's greed but also our own. In fact, if I had the time and resources, I would love to create a different video sharing site. It would be a site that is like YouTube but only allows 1080P video (to save on hosting). It would take a few minutes, maybe 5 to load a video, to save on bandwidth. It would have a limit on video length as well maybe, It would also not have any analytics or recommendation algorithm, and it would have a modest paid tier (2$ a month for some additional features). It might have a Patreon-like feature from which I would take a modest percentage, just to pay for hosting. Instead of a recommendation algorithm, it would have some basic categories and new videos would just appear in the categories that you subscribe to, but only sorted by date. It would be a slower, simpler site for genuine video sharing, but with some limitations to keep things realistic. I am being 100% serious: I do think a slower, more modest site with less features would be quite nice, sort of like Medium but for video.
- ddorian43 3y ago
  > would be quite nice, sort of like Medium The worst example possible.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Medium has its problems but at least it is trying to find another business model besides the ad-only kind, and that in itself is laudable.
    - iamgpt 3y ago
      Medium employs the worst kind of ad-business model. I'm not referring to traditional ads but to the practice of imposing a corporate paywall (which is akin to an ad since it's not your paywall but the company's) to entice users into paying Medium for content that they don't even own. Additionally, they pay creators peanuts through an opaque monetization system. It's reminiscent of every other content aggregator website now.
- jefftk 3y ago
  I don't see how taking 5min to start playing a video saves you much on bandwidth? I see how you save by accepting somewhat longer start times, and more variance, but even with the delay you're still paying to transfer the same number of bytes.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    Well, it would load the video more slowly, thereby causing people to watch fewer videos. Their selections would be more thoughtful and more focused rather than frenetic and shallow.
    - jefftk 3y ago
      Or people would set lots of videos to load in background tabs but only get around to watching some of them.
simbolit 3y ago
You would think controlling what the world watches via algorithms with no oversight whatsoever would be a valuable thing to have. But having that AND getting ad money is more valuable, of course, so they do it.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Isn't the first one what makes the later one valuable? And without it would have somewhat less value... And who would actually pay on what people watch? Would that really be sustainable model?
  - slowmovintarget 3y ago
    The first one lets you move opinion on things like AI regulation, anti-trust actions, election sentiment, and more... so the first one is valuable on its own. If you have the first, using it to get the second is like using a commercial passenger jet as a reading light (yes that's a Jim Butcher reference).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
  They also get all of your information/habits/etc.. It's pretty sweet being an all powerful tech company.
  - taylodl 3y ago
    Which has what value, exactly? I see the value being for lining up the ads you're most likely to be relevant to you. It increases the amount they can charge advertisers, and you're seeing ads that are more relevant to you. Is there some other value in having this information?
    - simbolit 3y ago
      in the individual case, it's ads or blackmail (and because the latter is illegal, Google isn't doing it). in the aggregate, at the population level? very valuable. especially changes over time.
jaimehrubiks 3y ago
Not sure why you're being down voted. I love ad blockers and that's my go-to when it comes to Google. But I think it's fair for them to offer YouTube in exchange of either privacy, ads or premium subscription
- dfxm12 3y ago
  It is naive to think they don't collect data from their YT premium users. Plus, for free users they show ads and collect data.

mrweasel 3y ago

> but even if not, YouTube is being greedy here While I agree with the greedy part, what do you specifically suggest they do? If they do nothing then the people without an adblocker are effectively subsidizing those who don't see the ads, resulting in them seeing more ads. If you don't want ads there's YouTube Premium ( even if it sucks that you need to get YouTube Music at the same time ). The worst part of that deal is that I'm pretty confident that Google is still collecting everything that can about me and uses it everywhere else.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
I think Google should offer a paid tier like YouTube premium, but with the following feautures: (1) You can opt out of any analytics and tracking (2) They would turn off ads for your OWN channel. So for example, if I have a channel and I pay for premium, then I should be able to TURN OFF ads so that OTHERS who view my channel don't see ads. If Google had these features, I would buy premium in a heartbeat.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  If we consider popular channels I wonder if single premium subscription is enough to cover the costs. Maybe Youtube could become actual hosting platform and allow creators and companies to pay some fee per minute of streaming at each resolution.
- IgorPartola 3y ago
  Why not Vimeo?
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    It is a good option.
    - taylodl 3y ago
      Technically, but not practically. None of the channels I subscribe to are on it. At the end of the day it's all about content. If YouTube had no content then I wouldn't be there.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> They are greedy, and instead of having a thriving business, they are making the exact same mistake as cable TV providers: How are they supposed to have a thriving business with no ads? Why would anyone pay for YouTube if not to remove the ads? The videos that get the most views only exist because YouTube shares ad revenue with creators. That content largely wouldn't exist without ad money to fund it. The cost to run YouTube is enormous.