5 ms·

I wouldn't be able to enjoy my usage of it. I have a strong moral objection to ads, so to me paying to get rid of ads is akin to paying off the bully so they wi

I wouldn't be able to enjoy my usage of it. I have a strong moral objection to ads, so to me paying to get rid of ads is akin to paying off the bully so they will stop beating you up. Next week they might decide you haven't paid enough, or that it doesn't even matter that you paid up -- they're bored and want to beat someone up. I'd rather give the bully a whack in balls instead.

sanswork 3y ago
Asking people to provide compensation for a service isn't bullying. They even give you a choice on how you pay. You hate ads, they give you an option to avoid them and now you hate paying to avoid them. You're trying to makes yourself sound self righteous and you just sound like you believe you are entitled to others resources.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  I'm not trying to be righteous, my moral compass is mine. I'd be fine with YouTube being a purely paid service. Either pay, or the server returns a 500. I might even be willing to pay for it then, knowing that the only ads i might encounter are sponsor segments in the video themselves (that i can also skip right on by.)
  - sanswork 3y ago
    You're trying to ascribe your actions to a moral cause instead of a financial one.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      You're trying to ascribe my actions to a financial cause instead of a moral one. Luckily for me, the only one that knows what to ascribe my actions to is..me.
      - sanswork 3y ago
        Yes because they are inconsistent with the actions of a moral position you claim and entirely consistent with the actions of someone doing something for financial reasons.
- medstrom 3y ago
  Except it's not a service that costs much money to run, so much as it is a giant silo exploiting the fact that lots of video is uploaded there. Don't you remember YouTube in 2005 before Google's purchase? It made ends meet all by itself, apparently. OK, video quality is higher now but, but they could make the lower-quality video freely accessible -- and so could lots of other possible video-upload sites without charging $15. The value-add is not why you're paying $15.
  - sanswork 3y ago
    No it didn't make ends meet it raised something like $35m from vc and was running at a loss of around $1m a month which is why they were so quick to sell to Google despite the growth. They also started ads in 2006 before Google bought them
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > Don't you remember YouTube in 2005 before Google's purchase? It made ends meet all by itself, apparently. They were burning VC funding the whole time. Youtube didn't become profitable until a few years ago even with Google ads being there it took that much scale and added ads for them to start breaking even on it.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Convenient to forget the video creators.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Creators have patreon now. It's a perfectly ethical way to make money. Doesn't even depend on copyright to work.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Bullshit. They're the ones who think themselves entitled to our attention. No one "asks" people to see ads. They're the ones who show ads to people in the most underhanded, intentionally attention grabbing manner possible. When you are charged a price, it's obvious and they are up front about it. Meanwhile in advertising land they make it a point to hide the ads in prose so you don't even know you're being manipulated, the videos cut into the ad abruptly so you can't react and it's not like links have big signs in them warning you about ads inside. Charge people money up front. If you send us ads, we'll delete them. Our attention is not currency to pay for services with.
  - sanswork 3y ago
    You're being entitled to their services. They give you a way to avoid ads and still compensate them. If you don't want to do that it has nothing to do with ads you are just a leech.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Leech? That's funny. You wanna take a peek at the numerous accounts under my name? Maybe stop offering some bullshit "free" tier before expecting people to pay you. Because that's what ad-supported YouTube is: free. It's absolutely free for everyone. They just happen to send you noise alongside the signal. Easily filtered out. Not to mention the fact Google's still extracting value out of you via surveillance capitalism. Better pay for the creator's patreon instead, that's a perfectly ethical way to make money.
      - sanswork 3y ago
        Yes a leech. They give you the option of paying with money or attention. If you choose neither but still use their service you are a leech. It's not free, they've made that clear, just because you are able to take something without paying doesnt make it free. You can justify being a leech all you want it doesn't impact me because i neither work for YouTube nor produce content for it but it also doesn't change what you are.
paulcole 3y ago
You’ve been regularly commenting on a website that’s an advertising/marketing channel for a VC firm since 2018. Seems like it’s more accurate to say that you have a moral objection to either ads you don’t like or things you have to pay for?
- oldkinglog 3y ago
  I've been reading HN since around that time, and it's hasn't made me sympathetic toward VC. If anything it's hardened my views against consumption, greed and advertising.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    Good advertising will do that to you. Make you think you hate it while it works on you.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  HN doesn't force me to watch or read the ads. I can always ignore the posts that are mainly advertising. So perhaps my moral objections are to obnoxious, in your face, unavoidable advertisements.
  - sanswork 3y ago
    If you read the headlines than you've read ads for thousands of products and they are unavoidable since they are inline.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    > I can always ignore the posts that are mainly advertising. This is the reason advertising works. Because people think it doesn’t work on them lol.
theshackleford 3y ago
It’s your behaviour I find far more in line with a bully. “I want what you have and I’m going to take it from you in any way I desire regardless of your thoughts on the matter”
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  "I gave my product away for free, bundled it with some garbage no one cares about because they paid me to do it and am now angry because people are throwing the garbage in the trash where it belongs and the garbage men don't want to pay me anymore."
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    Even more so. You gave me a product, and I took parts of it and threw it away. Once you gave it to me, your right to define what I do with it ended in my mind -- or to put it more concretely for Youtube, you sent me the bytes, I ignored some of them. That is my right and prerogative as the owner of the computer. Don't want me to ignore any of the bytes, don't send me any of them.
    - matheusmoreira 3y ago
      Exactly. We own the machine, in its realm we are gods. We dictate what it does or doesn't do. If it is our will that ads not be displayed on our screens, then by god it's not going to happen. It's actually offensive that these corporations even think they have any say at all about what goes on in our machines. The nerve.
      - genocidicbunny 3y ago
        I'm more offended at the people that support said corporations -- I can understand the profit motive for the corporation, but not prostrating yourself to them. To think that it should be okay to be forced to pay a month sub to a megacorp to control what I do with my computer, my hardware...is unappealing.

sanswork 3y ago

Asking people to provide compensation for a service isn't bullying. They even give you a choice on how you pay. You hate ads, they give you an option to avoid them and now you hate paying to avoid them. You're trying to makes yourself sound self righteous and you just sound like you believe you are entitled to others resources.

genocidicbunny 3y ago
I'm not trying to be righteous, my moral compass is mine. I'd be fine with YouTube being a purely paid service. Either pay, or the server returns a 500. I might even be willing to pay for it then, knowing that the only ads i might encounter are sponsor segments in the video themselves (that i can also skip right on by.)
- sanswork 3y ago
  You're trying to ascribe your actions to a moral cause instead of a financial one.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    You're trying to ascribe my actions to a financial cause instead of a moral one. Luckily for me, the only one that knows what to ascribe my actions to is..me.
    - sanswork 3y ago
      Yes because they are inconsistent with the actions of a moral position you claim and entirely consistent with the actions of someone doing something for financial reasons.
medstrom 3y ago
Except it's not a service that costs much money to run, so much as it is a giant silo exploiting the fact that lots of video is uploaded there. Don't you remember YouTube in 2005 before Google's purchase? It made ends meet all by itself, apparently. OK, video quality is higher now but, but they could make the lower-quality video freely accessible -- and so could lots of other possible video-upload sites without charging $15. The value-add is not why you're paying $15.
- sanswork 3y ago
  No it didn't make ends meet it raised something like $35m from vc and was running at a loss of around $1m a month which is why they were so quick to sell to Google despite the growth. They also started ads in 2006 before Google bought them
- Jensson 3y ago
  > Don't you remember YouTube in 2005 before Google's purchase? It made ends meet all by itself, apparently. They were burning VC funding the whole time. Youtube didn't become profitable until a few years ago even with Google ads being there it took that much scale and added ads for them to start breaking even on it.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Convenient to forget the video creators.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Creators have patreon now. It's a perfectly ethical way to make money. Doesn't even depend on copyright to work.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Bullshit. They're the ones who think themselves entitled to our attention. No one "asks" people to see ads. They're the ones who show ads to people in the most underhanded, intentionally attention grabbing manner possible. When you are charged a price, it's obvious and they are up front about it. Meanwhile in advertising land they make it a point to hide the ads in prose so you don't even know you're being manipulated, the videos cut into the ad abruptly so you can't react and it's not like links have big signs in them warning you about ads inside. Charge people money up front. If you send us ads, we'll delete them. Our attention is not currency to pay for services with.
- sanswork 3y ago
  You're being entitled to their services. They give you a way to avoid ads and still compensate them. If you don't want to do that it has nothing to do with ads you are just a leech.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Leech? That's funny. You wanna take a peek at the numerous accounts under my name? Maybe stop offering some bullshit "free" tier before expecting people to pay you. Because that's what ad-supported YouTube is: free. It's absolutely free for everyone. They just happen to send you noise alongside the signal. Easily filtered out. Not to mention the fact Google's still extracting value out of you via surveillance capitalism. Better pay for the creator's patreon instead, that's a perfectly ethical way to make money.
    - sanswork 3y ago
      Yes a leech. They give you the option of paying with money or attention. If you choose neither but still use their service you are a leech. It's not free, they've made that clear, just because you are able to take something without paying doesnt make it free. You can justify being a leech all you want it doesn't impact me because i neither work for YouTube nor produce content for it but it also doesn't change what you are.

paulcole 3y ago

You’ve been regularly commenting on a website that’s an advertising/marketing channel for a VC firm since 2018. Seems like it’s more accurate to say that you have a moral objection to either ads you don’t like or things you have to pay for?

oldkinglog 3y ago
I've been reading HN since around that time, and it's hasn't made me sympathetic toward VC. If anything it's hardened my views against consumption, greed and advertising.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Good advertising will do that to you. Make you think you hate it while it works on you.
genocidicbunny 3y ago
HN doesn't force me to watch or read the ads. I can always ignore the posts that are mainly advertising. So perhaps my moral objections are to obnoxious, in your face, unavoidable advertisements.
- sanswork 3y ago
  If you read the headlines than you've read ads for thousands of products and they are unavoidable since they are inline.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > I can always ignore the posts that are mainly advertising. This is the reason advertising works. Because people think it doesn’t work on them lol.

theshackleford 3y ago

It’s your behaviour I find far more in line with a bully. “I want what you have and I’m going to take it from you in any way I desire regardless of your thoughts on the matter”

matheusmoreira 3y ago
"I gave my product away for free, bundled it with some garbage no one cares about because they paid me to do it and am now angry because people are throwing the garbage in the trash where it belongs and the garbage men don't want to pay me anymore."
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  Even more so. You gave me a product, and I took parts of it and threw it away. Once you gave it to me, your right to define what I do with it ended in my mind -- or to put it more concretely for Youtube, you sent me the bytes, I ignored some of them. That is my right and prerogative as the owner of the computer. Don't want me to ignore any of the bytes, don't send me any of them.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    Exactly. We own the machine, in its realm we are gods. We dictate what it does or doesn't do. If it is our will that ads not be displayed on our screens, then by god it's not going to happen. It's actually offensive that these corporations even think they have any say at all about what goes on in our machines. The nerve.
    - genocidicbunny 3y ago
      I'm more offended at the people that support said corporations -- I can understand the profit motive for the corporation, but not prostrating yourself to them. To think that it should be okay to be forced to pay a month sub to a megacorp to control what I do with my computer, my hardware...is unappealing.