4 ms·

Reminds me of the RIAA fighting pirates. Doomed to fail.

by godzillabrennus 3y ago

pwthornton 3y ago
[flagged]
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  >You are stealing from creators. On a purely financial level, it's far more accurate to say I'm stealing from Google than from creators.
  - pwthornton 3y ago
    No. Creators got 55% of revenue on their channels. You are first and foremost stealing from them. Google has plenty of money.
    - MeImCounting 3y ago
      IF creators want to get paid they should run sponsorships in their videos or have patreons. Which most do. No amount of morally outraged shilling is going to compel reasonable people to watch ads. I frequently watch all the way through sponsorship segments that are entertaining and most creators vet what sponsorships they take so I also frequently use affiliate links if I am interested in a product. If google cant afford to host youtube its odd that its been around for decades in its current form but thats their problem. Not mine.
      - overstay8930 3y ago
        If you ever wanted to see how stupid the "YouTube is bad for blocking ads" thought camp is, this comment is a perfect example. "If creators wanted to get paid they should just run more ads" fucking LOL YouTube creates the (so far) unmatched creator compensation system with YouTube Red (now Premium), and now that Premium users generate so much more money for creators than Ads, they have to increase ads to compensate. Blocking ads literally makes you the bad guy, it's hilarious how people are trying to spin this as some freedom thing. Just say you think you're too good to pay for entertainment.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        The outrage from some folks about this is shocking. I just cannot understand being so impassioned about other peoples choice to not subject themselves to tracking and brainwashing in the form of unvetted ads that you type ad hominem and something like "fucking LOL" on an HN comment. Anyways, Ublock Origin still works great and I highly recommend it to everyone. I also highly recommend supporting the folks who make it as its a wonderful tool. Kind of like I recommend signing up for the patreon of creators you particularly enjoy ;)
    - theultdev 3y ago
      So if one of the creators is a billionaire you aren't stealing from them? I don't see how having "plenty of money" changes whether or not you can have something stolen from you... In reality, you're stealing from both Google and the creators. Whether you view it as justified is up to your own morals and perceptions.
  - FalconSensei 3y ago
    If ads are not being served, the content creators are not being paid, right?
- okasaki 3y ago
  One option exposes you to Google associating your real name with everything you watch, how long you watch, where you pause, rewatch, etc. The other exposes you to content that's designed to hack your brain (or occasionally your computer). If saying no thanks to both makes me scum then that's fine.
  - GrinningFool 3y ago
    There is the third option, though - don't consume the content if the terms by which it's offered aren't acceptable. You're getting it at someone else's expense. If you're doing that and not giving the expected value[1] in return (ad view, premium sub), then GP is right. That's virtually the definition of freeloading. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do so - but I think it is wrong to pretend it's something else. [1] expected value because those are the terms under which the content is made available.
    - FalconSensei 3y ago
      > There is the third option, though - don't consume the content if the terms by which it's offered aren't acceptable. I'm always amazed of how people forget that option
    - okasaki 3y ago
      Or maybe youtube is freeloading off of an open platform that's easy to work with, has tons of users, etc because it's so open and manipulable by design? If their ad views are so important they can develop their own native application with rootkit drm to make sure you're watching ads, etc.
- rokkamokka 3y ago
  Are creators getting less paid from adblocking watchers? Or are creators earning the same, but Google earning less?
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    Google pays creators out of the revenue they make from ads, and Google doesn’t make revenue from ads that were blocked. I think that would be fraud. I think this is fair TBH. If you want Google to pay creators, but you also want to access YouTube for free without paying or viewing ads, something isn’t lining up. This is why I let the ads roll. Even though it’s crumbs for the creator, if enough people do it, they do make money.
- mullingitover 3y ago
  > You are stealing from creators. Cry me a river, Google steals from creators as well when they put ads on videos that creators explicitly chose not to monetize. I would bet that Google's revenue from this dirty trick dwarfs all the money lost from folks running ad blockers.
  - kzhe 3y ago
    I'n a proud adblock user but that makes no sense. High quality video storage & streaming is costly.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Reminds me of the RIAA fighting pirates. Doomed to fail.

pwthornton 3y ago

[flagged]

BobaFloutist 3y ago
>You are stealing from creators. On a purely financial level, it's far more accurate to say I'm stealing from Google than from creators.
- pwthornton 3y ago
  No. Creators got 55% of revenue on their channels. You are first and foremost stealing from them. Google has plenty of money.
  - MeImCounting 3y ago
    IF creators want to get paid they should run sponsorships in their videos or have patreons. Which most do. No amount of morally outraged shilling is going to compel reasonable people to watch ads. I frequently watch all the way through sponsorship segments that are entertaining and most creators vet what sponsorships they take so I also frequently use affiliate links if I am interested in a product. If google cant afford to host youtube its odd that its been around for decades in its current form but thats their problem. Not mine.
    - overstay8930 3y ago
      If you ever wanted to see how stupid the "YouTube is bad for blocking ads" thought camp is, this comment is a perfect example. "If creators wanted to get paid they should just run more ads" fucking LOL YouTube creates the (so far) unmatched creator compensation system with YouTube Red (now Premium), and now that Premium users generate so much more money for creators than Ads, they have to increase ads to compensate. Blocking ads literally makes you the bad guy, it's hilarious how people are trying to spin this as some freedom thing. Just say you think you're too good to pay for entertainment.
      - MeImCounting 3y ago
        The outrage from some folks about this is shocking. I just cannot understand being so impassioned about other peoples choice to not subject themselves to tracking and brainwashing in the form of unvetted ads that you type ad hominem and something like "fucking LOL" on an HN comment. Anyways, Ublock Origin still works great and I highly recommend it to everyone. I also highly recommend supporting the folks who make it as its a wonderful tool. Kind of like I recommend signing up for the patreon of creators you particularly enjoy ;)
  - theultdev 3y ago
    So if one of the creators is a billionaire you aren't stealing from them? I don't see how having "plenty of money" changes whether or not you can have something stolen from you... In reality, you're stealing from both Google and the creators. Whether you view it as justified is up to your own morals and perceptions.
- FalconSensei 3y ago
  If ads are not being served, the content creators are not being paid, right?
okasaki 3y ago
One option exposes you to Google associating your real name with everything you watch, how long you watch, where you pause, rewatch, etc. The other exposes you to content that's designed to hack your brain (or occasionally your computer). If saying no thanks to both makes me scum then that's fine.
- GrinningFool 3y ago
  There is the third option, though - don't consume the content if the terms by which it's offered aren't acceptable. You're getting it at someone else's expense. If you're doing that and not giving the expected value[1] in return (ad view, premium sub), then GP is right. That's virtually the definition of freeloading. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to do so - but I think it is wrong to pretend it's something else. [1] expected value because those are the terms under which the content is made available.
  - FalconSensei 3y ago
    > There is the third option, though - don't consume the content if the terms by which it's offered aren't acceptable. I'm always amazed of how people forget that option
  - okasaki 3y ago
    Or maybe youtube is freeloading off of an open platform that's easy to work with, has tons of users, etc because it's so open and manipulable by design? If their ad views are so important they can develop their own native application with rootkit drm to make sure you're watching ads, etc.
rokkamokka 3y ago
Are creators getting less paid from adblocking watchers? Or are creators earning the same, but Google earning less?
- shortcake27 3y ago
  Google pays creators out of the revenue they make from ads, and Google doesn’t make revenue from ads that were blocked. I think that would be fraud. I think this is fair TBH. If you want Google to pay creators, but you also want to access YouTube for free without paying or viewing ads, something isn’t lining up. This is why I let the ads roll. Even though it’s crumbs for the creator, if enough people do it, they do make money.
mullingitover 3y ago
> You are stealing from creators. Cry me a river, Google steals from creators as well when they put ads on videos that creators explicitly chose not to monetize. I would bet that Google's revenue from this dirty trick dwarfs all the money lost from folks running ad blockers.
- kzhe 3y ago
  I'n a proud adblock user but that makes no sense. High quality video storage & streaming is costly.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]