4 ms·

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

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.

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.