8 ms·

Until it's publicly funded, it needs to be funded somehow. People who don't pay and block ads are scamming YouTube, or scamming advertisers.

by fma 3y ago

Y_Y 3y ago
Won't somebody _please_ think of the advertisers!?
- wombat-man 3y ago
  lol, do as you like. But this attitude that we are somehow owed a service like youtube for free without ads is comical.
  - gnz11 3y ago
    Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that the adtech industry is just serving up harmless banner ads or 30 second videos and calling it a day. Seeing an ad is one thing, the surveillance that comes with it is a whole new insidious beast. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
    - wombat-man 3y ago
      Sure, maybe we shouldn't be using YouTube at all. And I would prefer if we had more legal protections for user data in the US. But that aside, the sheer size and quality of YouTube. It's availability on every phone tv or whatever. This doesn't just happen magically.
      - gentleman11 3y ago
        You’re right. It’s not magic at all. It happens via monopoly and network effects
      - dahart 3y ago
        > This doesn’t happen magically. Correct! It happened by offering a completely free service with no advertising, in order to become the dominant player and eliminate all the competition, some of which was trying to use more sustainable business models. The idea that YouTube should be free also didn’t happen magically, it was (and still is) intentionally fostered.
        wombat-man 3y ago
        Sure, well was there a competitor you would have preferred to prevail? What was their business plan? YouTube is free. If you don’t mind ads.
        dahart 3y ago
        YouTube was free even if you do mind ads, on purpose. To a first approximation everyone minds ads. YouTube used this fact to establish their dominance before switching tactics. Lots of competitors have tried to use both paid accounts and ad-funding. What competitor I might prefer is irrelevant here, but there are plenty of them, just Google YouTube competitors. Vimeo is a good example of a site with high quality content and a more sustainable business model that tried for a while and was unable to broach the same market. YouTube so far surpassed everyone by offering videos without ads until more recently, in order to gain market share. The mindset you’re currently arguing against was established and curated and encouraged by YouTube, and they’re still hoping you hang on to it while they keep cranking up the amount of advertising and trying to normalize the bogus idea that avoiding ads is somehow bad. They do not have to offer an ad-funded business model, so if they don’t like the cat-and-mouse adblocker game, they can switch to paid accounts only. It’s perfectly fine to block ads, because it’s perfectly fine to ignore ads we didn’t ask for. You can fast-forward or turn the volume down manually, just like you can write software to automate it. As a society, we wouldn’t have it any other way. We’ve had this same debate over VHS and DVD warnings & trailers, over TV and cable ads, over radio ads, and over general internet website ads. It will never change because advertisers are not allowed to force us to watch ads, as much as they’d like to.
        3y ago
    - acdha 3y ago
      If you’re worried about surveillance, stop using YouTube. It’s a Google first-party product, they don’t need ads to collect and resell information about your viewing habits.
      - gentleman11 3y ago
        You have a YouTube alternative to recommend I take it? Because I looked for one and there isn’t any, just a bunch of half baked sites that I can’t get to work properly. YouTube ate everything
        acdha 3y ago
        I don’t use YouTube much so I’m skeptical that it’s impossible to live without it but the point is simply that if your top concern is surveillance, then you don’t have a choice where you continue to use Google services.
        carlosjobim 3y ago
        Turn on your TV or radio? They're still there. Read a book?
        fma 3y ago
        Put rabbit air antennas on your TV and tune into PBS. Minimal ads except for "this broadcast is sponsored by viewers like you" and no tracking.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    The attitude that we have to somehow endure whatever advertisers want us to and be grateful for it, just because YouTube destroyed all competition with a free-to-use model they changed after becoming a monopoly, is comical.
hypertele-Xii 3y ago
Considering Google and advertizers have been scamming us for decades, I'm just clawing payback.
- ovao 3y ago
  Which advertisers have been scamming us? And does that subset encompass everyone who advertises on YouTube?
  - delecti 3y ago
    Not to mention everyone who creates Youtube videos with the expectation of making money.
    - kergonath 3y ago
      Those get money off Patreon and sponsor deals. And they’re welcome to come over on Nebula or equivalent. In any case, if they make the choice to live off advertising, it’s their problem. They are not owed a business model.
      - delecti 3y ago
        And you are not owed online videos.
        kergonath 3y ago
        I am not arguing otherwise. I’m not the one complaining, though.
- MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
  How is it a scam to watch 15s of ads before a 10 minute video? Wait until you hear about cable TV.
  - emj 3y ago
Max-q 3y ago
And more importantly, they are scamming the content creators. They are not usually a massive company, but working alone, with YouTube revenue as their main income.
dahart 3y ago
It is factually incorrect to call it “scamming”, and this cancer of an idea needs to stop. YouTube has the right to offer only paying accounts, and stop serving free videos. They are choosing not to exercise that option. In fact, they chose to monopolize video streaming by initially offering free videos with no ads. Demanding ad viewing time is a recent change to their business model. Consumers also have the right to pay for YouTube, or to not watch YouTube, but when YouTube chooses to serve “free” videos with ads that are annoying and waste time, as long as there are easy technical options for removing the ads, the temptation is pretty high. There is no law that you must watch ads, not on YouTube, not on TV, not for billboards, not on the internet. And basically nobody wants to waste time watching ads. This is why it’s wrong to call it “scamming”. BTW I’m perfectly fine with the idea of an ad-funded business model for free services. I’m only objecting to your framing that avoiding ads when they can puts consumers in the wrong. YouTube’s funding is YouTube’s business, and they are free to fight against ad-blockers, but please don’t be a shill or vilify people for doing the obvious and legal thing. YouTube wants you to spout this crap because Google and advertisers would love it if there was public support for making ad-watching legally mandatory, and that would be a nightmare dystopian future we don’t want.

Until it's publicly funded, it needs to be funded somehow. People who don't pay and block ads are scamming YouTube, or scamming advertisers.

by fma 3y ago

Until it's publicly funded, it needs to be funded somehow. People who don't pay and block ads are scamming YouTube, or scamming advertisers.

Y_Y 3y ago

Won't somebody _please_ think of the advertisers!?

wombat-man 3y ago
lol, do as you like. But this attitude that we are somehow owed a service like youtube for free without ads is comical.
- gnz11 3y ago
  Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that the adtech industry is just serving up harmless banner ads or 30 second videos and calling it a day. Seeing an ad is one thing, the surveillance that comes with it is a whole new insidious beast. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_capitalism
  - wombat-man 3y ago
    Sure, maybe we shouldn't be using YouTube at all. And I would prefer if we had more legal protections for user data in the US. But that aside, the sheer size and quality of YouTube. It's availability on every phone tv or whatever. This doesn't just happen magically.
    - gentleman11 3y ago
      You’re right. It’s not magic at all. It happens via monopoly and network effects
    - dahart 3y ago
      > This doesn’t happen magically. Correct! It happened by offering a completely free service with no advertising, in order to become the dominant player and eliminate all the competition, some of which was trying to use more sustainable business models. The idea that YouTube should be free also didn’t happen magically, it was (and still is) intentionally fostered.
      - wombat-man 3y ago
        Sure, well was there a competitor you would have preferred to prevail? What was their business plan? YouTube is free. If you don’t mind ads.
        dahart 3y ago
        YouTube was free even if you do mind ads, on purpose. To a first approximation everyone minds ads. YouTube used this fact to establish their dominance before switching tactics. Lots of competitors have tried to use both paid accounts and ad-funding. What competitor I might prefer is irrelevant here, but there are plenty of them, just Google YouTube competitors. Vimeo is a good example of a site with high quality content and a more sustainable business model that tried for a while and was unable to broach the same market. YouTube so far surpassed everyone by offering videos without ads until more recently, in order to gain market share. The mindset you’re currently arguing against was established and curated and encouraged by YouTube, and they’re still hoping you hang on to it while they keep cranking up the amount of advertising and trying to normalize the bogus idea that avoiding ads is somehow bad. They do not have to offer an ad-funded business model, so if they don’t like the cat-and-mouse adblocker game, they can switch to paid accounts only. It’s perfectly fine to block ads, because it’s perfectly fine to ignore ads we didn’t ask for. You can fast-forward or turn the volume down manually, just like you can write software to automate it. As a society, we wouldn’t have it any other way. We’ve had this same debate over VHS and DVD warnings & trailers, over TV and cable ads, over radio ads, and over general internet website ads. It will never change because advertisers are not allowed to force us to watch ads, as much as they’d like to.
        3y ago
  - acdha 3y ago
    If you’re worried about surveillance, stop using YouTube. It’s a Google first-party product, they don’t need ads to collect and resell information about your viewing habits.
    - gentleman11 3y ago
      You have a YouTube alternative to recommend I take it? Because I looked for one and there isn’t any, just a bunch of half baked sites that I can’t get to work properly. YouTube ate everything
      - acdha 3y ago
        I don’t use YouTube much so I’m skeptical that it’s impossible to live without it but the point is simply that if your top concern is surveillance, then you don’t have a choice where you continue to use Google services.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        Turn on your TV or radio? They're still there. Read a book?
      - fma 3y ago
        Put rabbit air antennas on your TV and tune into PBS. Minimal ads except for "this broadcast is sponsored by viewers like you" and no tracking.
- kergonath 3y ago
  The attitude that we have to somehow endure whatever advertisers want us to and be grateful for it, just because YouTube destroyed all competition with a free-to-use model they changed after becoming a monopoly, is comical.

hypertele-Xii 3y ago

Considering Google and advertizers have been scamming us for decades, I'm just clawing payback.

ovao 3y ago
Which advertisers have been scamming us? And does that subset encompass everyone who advertises on YouTube?
- delecti 3y ago
  Not to mention everyone who creates Youtube videos with the expectation of making money.
  - kergonath 3y ago
    Those get money off Patreon and sponsor deals. And they’re welcome to come over on Nebula or equivalent. In any case, if they make the choice to live off advertising, it’s their problem. They are not owed a business model.
    - delecti 3y ago
      And you are not owed online videos.
      - kergonath 3y ago
        I am not arguing otherwise. I’m not the one complaining, though.
MatthiasPortzel 3y ago
How is it a scam to watch 15s of ads before a 10 minute video? Wait until you hear about cable TV.
- emj 3y ago

Max-q 3y ago

And more importantly, they are scamming the content creators. They are not usually a massive company, but working alone, with YouTube revenue as their main income.

dahart 3y ago

It is factually incorrect to call it “scamming”, and this cancer of an idea needs to stop. YouTube has the right to offer only paying accounts, and stop serving free videos. They are choosing not to exercise that option. In fact, they chose to monopolize video streaming by initially offering free videos with no ads. Demanding ad viewing time is a recent change to their business model. Consumers also have the right to pay for YouTube, or to not watch YouTube, but when YouTube chooses to serve “free” videos with ads that are annoying and waste time, as long as there are easy technical options for removing the ads, the temptation is pretty high. There is no law that you must watch ads, not on YouTube, not on TV, not for billboards, not on the internet. And basically nobody wants to waste time watching ads. This is why it’s wrong to call it “scamming”. BTW I’m perfectly fine with the idea of an ad-funded business model for free services. I’m only objecting to your framing that avoiding ads when they can puts consumers in the wrong. YouTube’s funding is YouTube’s business, and they are free to fight against ad-blockers, but please don’t be a shill or vilify people for doing the obvious and legal thing. YouTube wants you to spout this crap because Google and advertisers would love it if there was public support for making ad-watching legally mandatory, and that would be a nightmare dystopian future we don’t want.