4 ms·

"the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long" The issue, at least to me, is that Google has a sort of monopoly on >

by 0b100 3y ago

"the only reason this is upsetting to people is because it seemed to be free for so long" The issue, at least to me, is that Google has a sort of monopoly on >99% of content on Youtube. They provide virtually nothing[0] to content creators other than free†⸸ video hosting, and in return they get to gatekeep the content itself. All of the cost is offloaded onto the consumer, and there is little to no incentive (arguably negative* incentive) for the people producing the value (videos) to move off youtube. "It costs to make and it costs to deliver." It costs to make, but it's not Google that has to pay. It costs to deliver, but why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content? If the situation was "watch video on youtube with ads, or watch video on Peertube, or watch video on Odysee" I don't think many people would be complaining about mandatory ads on Youtube, but because it's "watch video on youtube with ads, or don't watch the video", people resent the dilema. [0] The most tangible, by far, value Youtube provides is the huge audience, but that's just a feedback loop, not due to quality or effort. Actually, it's probably due to the fact that many people who make great content have historically only put it on Youtube, because of the huge... and so on. Edit: Formatting (hopefully) fixed.

Ferret7446 3y ago
> why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content They're not? I don't know why you mention this. If the creator of a video decided to only make their video available on YouTube, that's their decision.
Jensson 3y ago
> It costs to make, but it's not Google that has to pay Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos. > It costs to deliver, but why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content? People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue.
- 0b100 3y ago
  "Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos." Google does not have to pay for videos. If a video brings google enough ad revenue, they willingly give some of it to the channel that made the video. They do not pay a fixed or up-front cost, and assume none of the risk/effort in creating videos. To be fully pedantic, Google doesn't pay for videos in any sense, they pay for the resulting attention. "People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue." The videos people want to watch are only on Youtube -> Viewers only use Youtube -> Content creators only upload to Youtube -> Repeat... Google's centripetal force prevents competitors from competing.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  The videos I watch are an extension of the forum posts and blogs that people have always done not because they are seeking "ad revenue" but simply because passionate people will make stuff about the things they like either for public good or simply because they like doing it. YouTube was not supposed to be about people trying to make money. That's the old thing. The entire point of YouTube was normal people can upload videos and make channels. The money just attracted the same garbage content as TV had before.
LargeTomato 3y ago
I was under the assumption that Google puts a large percentage of revenue into paying content creators and that YouTube is much more lucrative than Tiktok. YouTube wasn't even profitable until relatively recently (2018?).

by 0b100 3y ago

Ferret7446 3y ago

> why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content They're not? I don't know why you mention this. If the creator of a video decided to only make their video available on YouTube, that's their decision.

Jensson 3y ago

> It costs to make, but it's not Google that has to pay Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos. > It costs to deliver, but why should Google be the only party who gets to deliver other people's content? People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue.

0b100 3y ago
"Google pays creators 55% of the ad revenue, so yes Google has to pay for those videos." Google does not have to pay for videos. If a video brings google enough ad revenue, they willingly give some of it to the channel that made the video. They do not pay a fixed or up-front cost, and assume none of the risk/effort in creating videos. To be fully pedantic, Google doesn't pay for videos in any sense, they pay for the resulting attention. "People upload to YouTube because YouTube gives them plenty of ad revenue. They don't upload to sites without a lot of ads since that would reduce their ad revenue." The videos people want to watch are only on Youtube -> Viewers only use Youtube -> Content creators only upload to Youtube -> Repeat... Google's centripetal force prevents competitors from competing.
globular-toast 3y ago
The videos I watch are an extension of the forum posts and blogs that people have always done not because they are seeking "ad revenue" but simply because passionate people will make stuff about the things they like either for public good or simply because they like doing it. YouTube was not supposed to be about people trying to make money. That's the old thing. The entire point of YouTube was normal people can upload videos and make channels. The money just attracted the same garbage content as TV had before.

LargeTomato 3y ago

I was under the assumption that Google puts a large percentage of revenue into paying content creators and that YouTube is much more lucrative than Tiktok. YouTube wasn't even profitable until relatively recently (2018?).