5 ms·

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 u

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.
      - thunky 3y ago
        Or more likely they wouldn't even use the site.
        jefftk 3y ago
        Another way to reduce bandwidth costs!
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        I'd like to think I could cultivate a decent user base through decency and keep those types away. Plus I would add some technological features to make it only attractive to people who want a more deliberate experience.
- repelsteeltje 3y ago
  I think the point of Google's media distribution infrastructure isn't just bandwidth or providing ingest and playback that "just works". (That, indeed is what I personally would be interested in.) The "infrastructure" to the bigger audience is about * being available ubiquitously and recognized as a brand * discoverability, search, recommendations, filling you free time with cat videos, memes * being a platform for wannabee influencers with real advertisers money in the form of pennies offered to creatives Especially the latter two need to continuously monitor every little move happening in the "attention market".
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.

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.
    - thunky 3y ago
      Or more likely they wouldn't even use the site.
      - jefftk 3y ago
        Another way to reduce bandwidth costs!
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      I'd like to think I could cultivate a decent user base through decency and keep those types away. Plus I would add some technological features to make it only attractive to people who want a more deliberate experience.
repelsteeltje 3y ago
I think the point of Google's media distribution infrastructure isn't just bandwidth or providing ingest and playback that "just works". (That, indeed is what I personally would be interested in.) The "infrastructure" to the bigger audience is about * being available ubiquitously and recognized as a brand * discoverability, search, recommendations, filling you free time with cat videos, memes * being a platform for wannabee influencers with real advertisers money in the form of pennies offered to creatives Especially the latter two need to continuously monitor every little move happening in the "attention market".

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.