5 ms·

I find it weird that so many people think they should be entitled to everything for free. Who's paying the creators for the content they watch? Who's paying Goo

I find it weird that so many people think they should be entitled to everything for free. Who's paying the creators for the content they watch? Who's paying Google for delivering that content? Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription. Or use a different platform that doesn't serve ads. Or sign up for some other subscription service. Whatever. Do people also get mad at barbers that don't give free haircuts?

rychco 3y ago
Possibly a hot take, but youtube premium is too expensive. I don't care about youtube music, I don't care about offline use, I don't care about background play/queue on my phone. I just want to watch ad-free video, which I don't believe is worth $14/month. Ideally the offline/background play/queuing should be included because they're unrelated to the cost of serving video, but any other features like music/4K/etc should be an extra purchase. However, I strongly doubt enough people would even bother with those to justify having as separate features.
- 05 3y ago
  Just use an Argentinian/Indian/Turkish VPN to buy it for (much) less then..
Auracle 3y ago
While I largely agree with you, I think a lot of people are in an annoying in-between when it comes to buying a Youtube subscription. I maybe watch 5 minutes a day, averaged out. That's not nearly enough to make it worth it to me to buy a subscription. On the other hand, the ads have gotten really annoying. Being able to skip after 5 seconds on most is nice, but I'd almost rather they were just 10 seconds long and unskippable. It's frustrating to watch 5 seconds, skip, and then immediately need to do that again, especially if it's something you have on 'in the background.' If they had one based on a scale of how many videos you watch, I'd be much more keen. Of course, I expect they wouldn't do that for multiple reasons. I once had a website that would have been profitable if not for ad blockers, so I definitely get it. I don't know what the real solution is. Ideally they could block ad blockers and then keep the number of ads under control, but I doubt they'd actually reduce the numbers if they did manage to stop ad blockers.
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Infrequent use is an interesting use-case. Assuming no friction (no sign up, no tracking, etc - completely hypothetical) - would you pay 5 cents, or 25 cents, to watch a video once? Ignore the details - just in sprit, would you do it?
  - Auracle 3y ago
    I'd imagine I'd want it to be time based, not per video, but yeah. I'd probably want a counter right on the page of how much I've spent, and perhaps a toggle right up there if I decide I've spent enough that month and would rather have ads again. For your actual numbers, 5 cents would be fine. I don't think I'd go for 25 cents.
tehjoker 3y ago
we could have a kind of massive national arts program instead of this ad and subscription nonsense
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  And content creators apply for grants to get paid to produce content the government wants us to see?
  - tehjoker 3y ago
    You already get a lot of that lol. The govt can already produce stuff and get it promoted with their corporate partners it happens constantly. Youtube already demonotizes whatever it wants, and what does that privilege? The prerogatives of corporate america broadly via the advertising market. Doing it democratically would mean that instead of privileging addiction and watch time, we might include other metrics that relate to educational value or public interest and would prevent censorship due to the 1st amendment being directly applicable. The government is a site of democratic struggle. The corporate world is a group of allied dictatorships.
msla 3y ago
> I find it weird that so many people think they should be entitled to everything for free. Exactly: Nobody's entitled to my information without paying me. I use adblockers to keep out the freeloaders. Subscribing doesn't stop them from collecting information or showing me ads. Quite the opposite.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
cm2187 3y ago
I don't mind paying a small fee, assuming it goes to the creator (that's a strong assumption, youtube loves to demonetise creators if they don't stick to the doxa). But how can I do that without being tracked to death. I want to have nothing to do with the google ecosystem. I don't want google to create a stasi file of every video I watched in my life. I don't want to be fed their recommandation engine. Privacy is my primary reason for having an ad blocker and using firefox in the first place.
avgDev 3y ago
If google is serious about YT premium then they should ban sponsored videos. I don't want to pay for YT premium just to watch a channel tell me why I should give money to their sponsor. I have never watched a show on TV stop for 3 minutes to tell me why I should be using NordVPN with their code to SAVE TODAY!
- hexadec 3y ago
  You most certainly have, most TV shows have product placement and while it used to be incredibly awkward, it is still going on today. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVcRMh3T_rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVcRMh3T_rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcDJmioWng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcDJmioWng
  - avgDev 3y ago
    I know about product placement and certainly don't care for it. It isn't intrusive to me as I can just ignore it while getting the information I want. Additionally, it is clearly not the same. I cannot ignore an individual talking about NordVPN for 3 minutes.
  - handoflixue 3y ago
    Those examples blend in a lot better than most YouTube sponsors. I don't mind subtle product placement. Those didn't even name the product out loud, they just showed it off a bit.
ulchar 3y ago
I agree. But platform dependant throttling should be prevented by good regulation, if that means Youtube's business model is less viable I frankly don't care. All I know is I'm keeping my eyes open for their next swing at remote attestation. If you follow the money, it's a logical step.
goalonetwo 3y ago
It is your device playing the video. Shouldn't you be able to control what is playing on your device? You can bet I will do everything I can to not display ads. And I understand the other side of this. It is fair game for youtube to try to insert ads one way or another and make it as difficult as possible for me to remove them. And about supporting creators: Yes, that needs to be done. I give directly to creators through patreon or other. Youtube is a middleman that provides very little value.
- hu3 3y ago
  > You can bet I will do everything I can to not display ads. There you go: https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium "YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
  - goalonetwo 3y ago
    I'm not going to pay for a centralized BigTech that is going to keep 95%+ for themselves. And I'm also paying 5* that monthly subscription costs to creators I support.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Then you can watch their video on patreons and leave youtube entirely. I'm failing to see your predicament.
      - goalonetwo 3y ago
        There is no "predicament". I simply believe that it is my right to block ads as much as it is Youtube right to not send me videos anymore. At the end of the day, I'm issuing an API request to youtube servers and they are free to reply to me or block me. I'm also free to do whatever I want with the reply, which includes NOT displaying the ads.
        Workaccount2 3y ago
realusername 3y ago
> Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription. Why should I pay 10 times more what Google gets if I was watching ads? Where's the logic in all all of that?
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Because you don't want to watch ads, I guess.
  - realusername 3y ago
    They will have to make a more convincing case than that if they want to push premium as a real option, that's for sure.
terminous 3y ago
> Who's paying the creators for the content they watch? Such a tiny fraction of subscription and ad revenue goes to creators. > Who's paying Google for delivering that content? ISPs who have peering agreements with Google.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  55% of subscription revenue goes to creators... Premium views pay substantially more than ad views, both pay infinitely more than ad-block views ($0).
Workaccount2 3y ago
You read these posts about people hating youtube, hating ads, over my dead body will I pay for premium. The same people talking about how their needs to be a competitor in the space. It is completely lost on them that maybe the reason there is no competition is because nobody wants to watch ads or pay for premium. The barber stopped giving free haircuts and now people are pissed that nobody wants to open up a "competing" free-haircut barber shop.
- goalonetwo 3y ago
  A lot of people would be happy to support a 3rd party video platform. I know I would. I paid for Vimeo for years. The sad truth is that there are not enough people that would. But I cannot and refuse to pay Google, especially youtube given their stance on censorship.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Vid.me did exactly what everyone who cries about youtube wanted. It even got really popular. Then it went bankrupt because what everyone actually wants above all else is a totally cost-free/ad-free platform.
    - goalonetwo 3y ago
      The issue is always that creators themselves don't upload their videos to those 3rd parties. That forces you to come back to Youtube one way or another. As for a lot of things there is a big network effect at play here.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago
        Vid.me actually got a lot of traction. It was drawing many youtubers over too, who were dual posting for a while. But how can you expect creators to move to a platform that cannot provide compensation?
      - hotnfresh 3y ago
hotnfresh 3y ago
YouTube was built on piracy. Live by the sword et c. et c.
aosaigh 3y ago
This comes up absolutely every time Youtube ads are mentioned. For most people, the issue isn't ads/no ads. The issue is that Youtube without an ad-blocker is unusable. There are regularly 6+ short ads in the first 4-5 minutes of the video. If you try seek in the video, there are ads. I'd happily watch a reasonable number of ads, in the same way I'm happy to listen to 1 or 2 ads in the middle of a podcast. I'm not watching videos where the content is broken up literally every 2 minutes with ads.
Justsignedup 3y ago
lets do a different analogy: you have a bunch of barbers in a city, well, i open up a business where i cut hair. BUT I do a shitty job, so you kinda need to come back maybe 3 times for a decent haircut. Wow it sucks. Yeah. BUT... I also put in a giant screen with ads, and an advertiser that counts people watching the ads. And then I say... ITS FREE. Woah okay. At first not much happens, but eventually the other barbers start to lose money, thats because they can't compete with my free haircut business. I quickly expand and now have shops all over town, and competition is dying. Now some people realized they can take a quick nap while getting a haircut so they don't see the ads. And suddenly I kick out anyone who takes a nap. Those people can no longer get haircuts because everyone else closed down because they couldn't compete with my free. And as those people complain everyone says "EVERYONE WANTS A FREE HAIRCUT BUT NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR IT!" Edit: I also start selling packages of 20 ad-free haircuts a month. Most people think this package is a bit insane given that they don't get 20 haircuts in a month. Or every month. And they still have to listen to the barber push their "cancer cures" and other nonsense they keep pushing every time they get a haircut. This is the reaction I am seeing.
wzdd 3y ago
No, people are getting mad because Youtube has been letting people use it with ad-blockers for 18 years (in practise, at least) and have now hardened their stance considerably. In other words, they got to the dominant position by being very lenient, and now that they are on top they are tightening the screws. This means that people who watched Youtube for up to 18 years with ad blockers are now forced to decide whether they want to pay money, watch ads, or stop using the service. None of those choices is better, except possibly morally, than the now-unavailable but previously-very-available choice of getting Youtube for free with no ads. If Google showed text ads for a few seconds before every search and used technical means to prevent people from bypassing that process, there would be a similar outcry -- even though everybody knows that it costs Google money to provide search results.
Vicinity9635 3y ago
It's psychological warfare against me. Why should I play nice when they aren't? >To those men in their oddly similar dark suits, their cold eyes weighing and dismissing everything, the people of this valley were a foe to be defeated. As he thought of it, Dasein realized all customers were "The Enemy" to these men. Davidson and his kind were pitted against each other, yes, competitive, but among themselves they betrayed that they were pitted more against the masses who existed beyond that inner ring of knowledgeable financial operation. >The alignment was apparent in everything they did, in their words as well as their actions. They spoke of "package grab level" and "container flash time" -- of "puff limit" and "acceptance threshold." It was an "in" language of militarylike maneuvering and combat. They knew which height on a shelf was most apt to make a customer grab an item. They knew the "flash time" -- the shelf width needed for certain containers. They knew how much empty air could be "puffed" into a package to make it appear a greater bargain. they knew how much price and package manipulation the customer would accept without jarring him into a "rejection pattern." >And we're their spies, Dasein thought. the psychiatrists and psychologists - all the "social scientists" we're the espionage arm. The Santaroga Barrier, Frank Herbert, 1968
- Nifty3929 3y ago
  Thanks. Added to my reading list.
dotBen 3y ago
> Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription Why is YouTube Premium $14/m? I find it hard to back into the economics based on either comparisons with Netflix, Hulu, etc or based on the amount YouTube have to pay creators per viewer per month for a typical amount of engagement.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rychco 3y ago

Possibly a hot take, but youtube premium is too expensive. I don't care about youtube music, I don't care about offline use, I don't care about background play/queue on my phone. I just want to watch ad-free video, which I don't believe is worth $14/month. Ideally the offline/background play/queuing should be included because they're unrelated to the cost of serving video, but any other features like music/4K/etc should be an extra purchase. However, I strongly doubt enough people would even bother with those to justify having as separate features.

05 3y ago
Just use an Argentinian/Indian/Turkish VPN to buy it for (much) less then..

Auracle 3y ago

While I largely agree with you, I think a lot of people are in an annoying in-between when it comes to buying a Youtube subscription. I maybe watch 5 minutes a day, averaged out. That's not nearly enough to make it worth it to me to buy a subscription. On the other hand, the ads have gotten really annoying. Being able to skip after 5 seconds on most is nice, but I'd almost rather they were just 10 seconds long and unskippable. It's frustrating to watch 5 seconds, skip, and then immediately need to do that again, especially if it's something you have on 'in the background.' If they had one based on a scale of how many videos you watch, I'd be much more keen. Of course, I expect they wouldn't do that for multiple reasons. I once had a website that would have been profitable if not for ad blockers, so I definitely get it. I don't know what the real solution is. Ideally they could block ad blockers and then keep the number of ads under control, but I doubt they'd actually reduce the numbers if they did manage to stop ad blockers.

Nifty3929 3y ago
Infrequent use is an interesting use-case. Assuming no friction (no sign up, no tracking, etc - completely hypothetical) - would you pay 5 cents, or 25 cents, to watch a video once? Ignore the details - just in sprit, would you do it?
- Auracle 3y ago
  I'd imagine I'd want it to be time based, not per video, but yeah. I'd probably want a counter right on the page of how much I've spent, and perhaps a toggle right up there if I decide I've spent enough that month and would rather have ads again. For your actual numbers, 5 cents would be fine. I don't think I'd go for 25 cents.

tehjoker 3y ago

we could have a kind of massive national arts program instead of this ad and subscription nonsense

Nifty3929 3y ago
And content creators apply for grants to get paid to produce content the government wants us to see?
- tehjoker 3y ago
  You already get a lot of that lol. The govt can already produce stuff and get it promoted with their corporate partners it happens constantly. Youtube already demonotizes whatever it wants, and what does that privilege? The prerogatives of corporate america broadly via the advertising market. Doing it democratically would mean that instead of privileging addiction and watch time, we might include other metrics that relate to educational value or public interest and would prevent censorship due to the 1st amendment being directly applicable. The government is a site of democratic struggle. The corporate world is a group of allied dictatorships.

msla 3y ago

> I find it weird that so many people think they should be entitled to everything for free. Exactly: Nobody's entitled to my information without paying me. I use adblockers to keep out the freeloaders. Subscribing doesn't stop them from collecting information or showing me ads. Quite the opposite.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

cm2187 3y ago

I don't mind paying a small fee, assuming it goes to the creator (that's a strong assumption, youtube loves to demonetise creators if they don't stick to the doxa). But how can I do that without being tracked to death. I want to have nothing to do with the google ecosystem. I don't want google to create a stasi file of every video I watched in my life. I don't want to be fed their recommandation engine. Privacy is my primary reason for having an ad blocker and using firefox in the first place.

avgDev 3y ago

If google is serious about YT premium then they should ban sponsored videos. I don't want to pay for YT premium just to watch a channel tell me why I should give money to their sponsor. I have never watched a show on TV stop for 3 minutes to tell me why I should be using NordVPN with their code to SAVE TODAY!

hexadec 3y ago
You most certainly have, most TV shows have product placement and while it used to be incredibly awkward, it is still going on today. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVcRMh3T_rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVcRMh3T_rE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcDJmioWng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjcDJmioWng
- avgDev 3y ago
  I know about product placement and certainly don't care for it. It isn't intrusive to me as I can just ignore it while getting the information I want. Additionally, it is clearly not the same. I cannot ignore an individual talking about NordVPN for 3 minutes.
- handoflixue 3y ago
  Those examples blend in a lot better than most YouTube sponsors. I don't mind subtle product placement. Those didn't even name the product out loud, they just showed it off a bit.

ulchar 3y ago

I agree. But platform dependant throttling should be prevented by good regulation, if that means Youtube's business model is less viable I frankly don't care. All I know is I'm keeping my eyes open for their next swing at remote attestation. If you follow the money, it's a logical step.

goalonetwo 3y ago

It is your device playing the video. Shouldn't you be able to control what is playing on your device? You can bet I will do everything I can to not display ads. And I understand the other side of this. It is fair game for youtube to try to insert ads one way or another and make it as difficult as possible for me to remove them. And about supporting creators: Yes, that needs to be done. I give directly to creators through patreon or other. Youtube is a middleman that provides very little value.

hu3 3y ago
> You can bet I will do everything I can to not display ads. There you go: https://www.youtube.com/premium https://www.youtube.com/premium "YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background"
- goalonetwo 3y ago
  I'm not going to pay for a centralized BigTech that is going to keep 95%+ for themselves. And I'm also paying 5* that monthly subscription costs to creators I support.
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Then you can watch their video on patreons and leave youtube entirely. I'm failing to see your predicament.
    - goalonetwo 3y ago
      There is no "predicament". I simply believe that it is my right to block ads as much as it is Youtube right to not send me videos anymore. At the end of the day, I'm issuing an API request to youtube servers and they are free to reply to me or block me. I'm also free to do whatever I want with the reply, which includes NOT displaying the ads.
      - Workaccount2 3y ago

realusername 3y ago

> Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription. Why should I pay 10 times more what Google gets if I was watching ads? Where's the logic in all all of that?

Nifty3929 3y ago
Because you don't want to watch ads, I guess.
- realusername 3y ago
  They will have to make a more convincing case than that if they want to push premium as a real option, that's for sure.

terminous 3y ago

> Who's paying the creators for the content they watch? Such a tiny fraction of subscription and ad revenue goes to creators. > Who's paying Google for delivering that content? ISPs who have peering agreements with Google.

Workaccount2 3y ago
55% of subscription revenue goes to creators... Premium views pay substantially more than ad views, both pay infinitely more than ad-block views ($0).

Workaccount2 3y ago

You read these posts about people hating youtube, hating ads, over my dead body will I pay for premium. The same people talking about how their needs to be a competitor in the space. It is completely lost on them that maybe the reason there is no competition is because nobody wants to watch ads or pay for premium. The barber stopped giving free haircuts and now people are pissed that nobody wants to open up a "competing" free-haircut barber shop.

goalonetwo 3y ago
A lot of people would be happy to support a 3rd party video platform. I know I would. I paid for Vimeo for years. The sad truth is that there are not enough people that would. But I cannot and refuse to pay Google, especially youtube given their stance on censorship.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Vid.me did exactly what everyone who cries about youtube wanted. It even got really popular. Then it went bankrupt because what everyone actually wants above all else is a totally cost-free/ad-free platform.
  - goalonetwo 3y ago
    The issue is always that creators themselves don't upload their videos to those 3rd parties. That forces you to come back to Youtube one way or another. As for a lot of things there is a big network effect at play here.
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Vid.me actually got a lot of traction. It was drawing many youtubers over too, who were dual posting for a while. But how can you expect creators to move to a platform that cannot provide compensation?
    - hotnfresh 3y ago

hotnfresh 3y ago

YouTube was built on piracy. Live by the sword et c. et c.

aosaigh 3y ago

This comes up absolutely every time Youtube ads are mentioned. For most people, the issue isn't ads/no ads. The issue is that Youtube without an ad-blocker is unusable. There are regularly 6+ short ads in the first 4-5 minutes of the video. If you try seek in the video, there are ads. I'd happily watch a reasonable number of ads, in the same way I'm happy to listen to 1 or 2 ads in the middle of a podcast. I'm not watching videos where the content is broken up literally every 2 minutes with ads.

Justsignedup 3y ago

lets do a different analogy: you have a bunch of barbers in a city, well, i open up a business where i cut hair. BUT I do a shitty job, so you kinda need to come back maybe 3 times for a decent haircut. Wow it sucks. Yeah. BUT... I also put in a giant screen with ads, and an advertiser that counts people watching the ads. And then I say... ITS FREE. Woah okay. At first not much happens, but eventually the other barbers start to lose money, thats because they can't compete with my free haircut business. I quickly expand and now have shops all over town, and competition is dying. Now some people realized they can take a quick nap while getting a haircut so they don't see the ads. And suddenly I kick out anyone who takes a nap. Those people can no longer get haircuts because everyone else closed down because they couldn't compete with my free. And as those people complain everyone says "EVERYONE WANTS A FREE HAIRCUT BUT NOT WILLING TO PAY FOR IT!" Edit: I also start selling packages of 20 ad-free haircuts a month. Most people think this package is a bit insane given that they don't get 20 haircuts in a month. Or every month. And they still have to listen to the barber push their "cancer cures" and other nonsense they keep pushing every time they get a haircut. This is the reaction I am seeing.

wzdd 3y ago

No, people are getting mad because Youtube has been letting people use it with ad-blockers for 18 years (in practise, at least) and have now hardened their stance considerably. In other words, they got to the dominant position by being very lenient, and now that they are on top they are tightening the screws. This means that people who watched Youtube for up to 18 years with ad blockers are now forced to decide whether they want to pay money, watch ads, or stop using the service. None of those choices is better, except possibly morally, than the now-unavailable but previously-very-available choice of getting Youtube for free with no ads. If Google showed text ads for a few seconds before every search and used technical means to prevent people from bypassing that process, there would be a similar outcry -- even though everybody knows that it costs Google money to provide search results.

Vicinity9635 3y ago

It's psychological warfare against me. Why should I play nice when they aren't? >To those men in their oddly similar dark suits, their cold eyes weighing and dismissing everything, the people of this valley were a foe to be defeated. As he thought of it, Dasein realized all customers were "The Enemy" to these men. Davidson and his kind were pitted against each other, yes, competitive, but among themselves they betrayed that they were pitted more against the masses who existed beyond that inner ring of knowledgeable financial operation. >The alignment was apparent in everything they did, in their words as well as their actions. They spoke of "package grab level" and "container flash time" -- of "puff limit" and "acceptance threshold." It was an "in" language of militarylike maneuvering and combat. They knew which height on a shelf was most apt to make a customer grab an item. They knew the "flash time" -- the shelf width needed for certain containers. They knew how much empty air could be "puffed" into a package to make it appear a greater bargain. they knew how much price and package manipulation the customer would accept without jarring him into a "rejection pattern." >And we're their spies, Dasein thought. the psychiatrists and psychologists - all the "social scientists" we're the espionage arm. The Santaroga Barrier, Frank Herbert, 1968

Nifty3929 3y ago
Thanks. Added to my reading list.

dotBen 3y ago

> Instead of an ad-blocker, try a YT premium subscription Why is YouTube Premium $14/m? I find it hard to back into the economics based on either comparisons with Netflix, Hulu, etc or based on the amount YouTube have to pay creators per viewer per month for a typical amount of engagement.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]