4 ms·

I feel like no one is really saying it in this discussion, but paying the $9 a month or whatever for YouTube Premium makes this whole thing a non-issue, and com

I feel like no one is really saying it in this discussion, but paying the $9 a month or whatever for YouTube Premium makes this whole thing a non-issue, and comes with perks like being able to download videos to your device (great for flying) and to play things in the background.

angoragoats 3y ago
It’s funny that you mention “play[ing] things in the background” as a perk, because for me, artificially paywalling a feature on mobile devices that you get for free on every computer is a great way to get me not to pay for your service.
lhamil64 3y ago
They are unfortunately raising it to $14/mo. But I'll keep paying because I can't stand the YouTube ads, and it comes with YouTube Music so I don't need to pay for Spotify or some other music service.
whalesalad 3y ago
This and spotify are the two monthly expenses I cannot live without. YT Premium is soooo worth it. And yes, I realize I can play music via the same subscription but I have been using Spotify since before it existed outside Sweden and really enjoy it. I will not be leaving any time soon.
kyruzic 3y ago
No one is saying this because people who intentionally use ublock are doing it to not support youtube.
sdrinf 3y ago
Logging in means random videos I check from various corners of the internet starts shaping the recommendation algo. Many of these are extremely deep and vicious traps (eg my most recent one was misery porn). Youtube premium does not works for incognito mode. This requires careful, and manual curation of my "history" page. No thank you.
- tzs 3y ago
  Wait...are you actually getting useful recommendations from the not-logged-in recommendation algorithm? Whenever I've use YouTube not logged in the recommendations have been pretty worthless.
  - Riseed 3y ago
    Not the person you asked, but yes. My not-logged-in recommendations are scarily great. They’re excellent (better than my logged-in recommendations, as of my last check) on the non-incognito browser on one machine, and merely very good on the incognito browser on the other machine.
doublemint2203 3y ago
they're not saying it because microeconomic pressures result in a system where YouTube is unenjoyable or expensive. As humans, we can organize this system to be an enjoyable, free tool, and Google won't be terribly affected by the minor loss in profits but instead, the pressures of capitalism drive innovation to optimize for an undesirable outcome. this isn't negative commentary on capitalism itself, but a roundabout way of saying Google is fucking greedy, I'm a student, and nobody should ever have to pay 9 bucks for youtube.
- its_ethan 3y ago
  The good news is you don't have to pay 9 bucks for youtube
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  >As humans, we... "We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?
  - Teachez 3y ago
    There's a lot of double think around here that resolves around the call to do your bit and support Google's model. I should know better but I still find it breathtaking. Capitalism's benefits are brought to fruition through competition, and hard nosed decisions on all sides. I was raised by a capitalist believer. That is what he instilled in me. The willingness of the consumer to exercise choice is paramount. As such, I rail against the fatalism that we must pay, and not find ways to not pay. Good grief, no. That 9$ is urgently required in order to purchase healthy food at spiralling prices, and to pay for the requirements for healthy activities. Google? The last people i am concerned about. Content makers, that's an interesting story. SV and others rips them off, and crushes the business models that supported their livelyhoods. But now I have to be concerned about the youtube content makers? Think about it. People do things without recompense all the time. It's called joy, or something. It is a fact. If that's not possible, they could investigate setting up patreons. What YT have somehow done is repackage their business model in vivo in your head. It's not Yt's business model at all. It is a moral obligation to creators. The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course. Consumers with a moral concern for the world rather than just passing emotional whims are supposed to allow themselves to recognise how hard nosed the investors and executives are. This is all business. All transactions. Forget the selling of attention and data. Your presence and interest in a thing is advertising, and affirms it as something of value. I'm respectful of the desire to support people who create things of value for us, but it's absolutely vital to realise that one of life's great joys is doing so for free. Frankly sometimes when I feel there's also an air of desperation around this discussion. If the transition from free to paid service can't be normalised, a lot of people on here would seem to stand to lose or face uncertainty. I wish I could impart upon people there is a great need to frequently revisit and exploring our moral, ethical social contracts - and to realise how flimsy our justifications are, and how limited we are in being able to concieve of the realities involve. There's something childlike about it. It's hard to know when just to leave that alone, as entire point is that life might not offer any certainty whatsoever as to the 'goodness' inherent in the act or any protection against it unwittingly - in the final analysis - proving to be a terrible thing for all involved, if only we understood (but we can't). Basically... uhhh.... we could stand to be hard nosed consumers. Not cynical, but perhaps not avoiding the "realist" view that there are huge and unavoidable ambiguities and contradictions in everything we are engaging with, and pretending otherwise is not about being a wise adult, it's about silly and childish ideas such as good and evil. I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.

angoragoats 3y ago

It’s funny that you mention “play[ing] things in the background” as a perk, because for me, artificially paywalling a feature on mobile devices that you get for free on every computer is a great way to get me not to pay for your service.

lhamil64 3y ago

They are unfortunately raising it to $14/mo. But I'll keep paying because I can't stand the YouTube ads, and it comes with YouTube Music so I don't need to pay for Spotify or some other music service.

whalesalad 3y ago

This and spotify are the two monthly expenses I cannot live without. YT Premium is soooo worth it. And yes, I realize I can play music via the same subscription but I have been using Spotify since before it existed outside Sweden and really enjoy it. I will not be leaving any time soon.

kyruzic 3y ago

No one is saying this because people who intentionally use ublock are doing it to not support youtube.

sdrinf 3y ago

Logging in means random videos I check from various corners of the internet starts shaping the recommendation algo. Many of these are extremely deep and vicious traps (eg my most recent one was misery porn). Youtube premium does not works for incognito mode. This requires careful, and manual curation of my "history" page. No thank you.

tzs 3y ago
Wait...are you actually getting useful recommendations from the not-logged-in recommendation algorithm? Whenever I've use YouTube not logged in the recommendations have been pretty worthless.
- Riseed 3y ago
  Not the person you asked, but yes. My not-logged-in recommendations are scarily great. They’re excellent (better than my logged-in recommendations, as of my last check) on the non-incognito browser on one machine, and merely very good on the incognito browser on the other machine.

doublemint2203 3y ago

they're not saying it because microeconomic pressures result in a system where YouTube is unenjoyable or expensive. As humans, we can organize this system to be an enjoyable, free tool, and Google won't be terribly affected by the minor loss in profits but instead, the pressures of capitalism drive innovation to optimize for an undesirable outcome. this isn't negative commentary on capitalism itself, but a roundabout way of saying Google is fucking greedy, I'm a student, and nobody should ever have to pay 9 bucks for youtube.

its_ethan 3y ago
The good news is you don't have to pay 9 bucks for youtube
carlosjobim 3y ago
>As humans, we... "We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?
- Teachez 3y ago
  There's a lot of double think around here that resolves around the call to do your bit and support Google's model. I should know better but I still find it breathtaking. Capitalism's benefits are brought to fruition through competition, and hard nosed decisions on all sides. I was raised by a capitalist believer. That is what he instilled in me. The willingness of the consumer to exercise choice is paramount. As such, I rail against the fatalism that we must pay, and not find ways to not pay. Good grief, no. That 9$ is urgently required in order to purchase healthy food at spiralling prices, and to pay for the requirements for healthy activities. Google? The last people i am concerned about. Content makers, that's an interesting story. SV and others rips them off, and crushes the business models that supported their livelyhoods. But now I have to be concerned about the youtube content makers? Think about it. People do things without recompense all the time. It's called joy, or something. It is a fact. If that's not possible, they could investigate setting up patreons. What YT have somehow done is repackage their business model in vivo in your head. It's not Yt's business model at all. It is a moral obligation to creators. The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course. Consumers with a moral concern for the world rather than just passing emotional whims are supposed to allow themselves to recognise how hard nosed the investors and executives are. This is all business. All transactions. Forget the selling of attention and data. Your presence and interest in a thing is advertising, and affirms it as something of value. I'm respectful of the desire to support people who create things of value for us, but it's absolutely vital to realise that one of life's great joys is doing so for free. Frankly sometimes when I feel there's also an air of desperation around this discussion. If the transition from free to paid service can't be normalised, a lot of people on here would seem to stand to lose or face uncertainty. I wish I could impart upon people there is a great need to frequently revisit and exploring our moral, ethical social contracts - and to realise how flimsy our justifications are, and how limited we are in being able to concieve of the realities involve. There's something childlike about it. It's hard to know when just to leave that alone, as entire point is that life might not offer any certainty whatsoever as to the 'goodness' inherent in the act or any protection against it unwittingly - in the final analysis - proving to be a terrible thing for all involved, if only we understood (but we can't). Basically... uhhh.... we could stand to be hard nosed consumers. Not cynical, but perhaps not avoiding the "realist" view that there are huge and unavoidable ambiguities and contradictions in everything we are engaging with, and pretending otherwise is not about being a wise adult, it's about silly and childish ideas such as good and evil. I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.