3 ms·

I personally prefer free content made by volunteers and would like the whole web to be ad free. It would be fine for me if Youtube stopped operations and if all

I personally prefer free content made by volunteers and would like the whole web to be ad free. It would be fine for me if Youtube stopped operations and if all "income-oriented" content producers went away. I feel the same about websites. The Internet was fine before it became commercialized. I'm both creating and consuming free content (why not?) but I'm not willing to waste my time on watching ads or anything like that. For other things, I'm willing to pay. Other people's mileage may differ, of course. It's just a personal preference.

idiotsecant 3y ago
The people that create the content you consume only have so many hours in the day, just like you. They need to pay the rent, buy groceries, get their kids braces, just like the test of us. It seems immoral and unrealistic to expect that for free. Consume it and support them or don't consume it and don't support them but the attitude that you're entitled to it is a little slimy.
- jonathanstrange 3y ago
  Huh? Why would it be immoral? I'm producing free content myself, e.g. my open source repositories have permissive licenses like MIT, I run a blog, have put some of my music online, etc. Seriously, chances are almost 100% percent that you are massively benefiting right now from completely free of charge software that some guys developed for free in their spare time (perhaps even decades ago) - how immoral of you!
  - dncornholio 3y ago
    What are these mental gymnastics? You're practically saying nobody is allowed to make money for their content because you don't. Where is the logic in this?
    - jonathanstrange 3y ago
      You misunderstood me entirely. People can sell their content for whatever price they like. For example, I sell my science fiction and fantasy novels although I could give them away for free. I also used to sell shareware in the past and plan to sell commercial, proprietary software in the future. People can freely decide whether they want to sell the content they've created or give it away for free. If it's the former, they should sell it, and if it's the latter, they should give it away for free. They just cannot and ought not rely on business models that restrict how people display information on their devices that has been sent to them voluntarily. As I said in the beginning, I have no quirks with Youtube going subscription-only.
  - nightski 3y ago
    I'm not the parent and would not say it's immoral but being able to produce content for free is a form of privilege. Not everyone has that luxury. Let's face it we live in a time where engineers make an absurd amount of money for the services they provide.
- account42 3y ago
  No, making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross. Making that transaction indirect via psychological manipulation using intermediaries is even worse. Discover better ways to support people who do useful work. Or rather, re-discover them since they are older than ads.
  - throw10920 3y ago
    > making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross You seem to think that YouTube is "every human exchange". I'm going to let that speak for itself.
    - account42 3y ago
      I made no such claim so the only thing you are letting speak is your lack of reading comprehension.
  - musictubes 3y ago
    This is nuts. So movies shouldn’t charge either right? Or TV shows. Where is the line between something that you think should be free and what someone needs to be compensated for in order to make it? That line is determined by the creators. The people making money on YouTube do it as a full time gig why shouldn’t they get paid? Clearly if they weren’t they would be forced to do something else instead of video making. YouTube is an amazing platform. It has allowed people to make videos about things they want and allowed people interested in that content to find it. Allowing people to pay (in various ways) for what they want means that other people can step up and provide that service instead of doing something else. A good heuristic for when financial transactions are “gross” is if you are dealing with strangers or not. If you call your spouse from work and ask them to make and bring you a sandwich for lunch we would be horrified if they said it’ll cost you $20. On the other hand, no one should feel offended if you get charged when you call up a stranger to do the same thing. There are different incentives at work in different spheres of life. Society depends on strangers doing things for other strangers. Google the Fatal Conceit to get the full picture. Bottom line is that there is nothing “gross” either for paying for something you want from a stranger or of them being paid for something they did for you.

idiotsecant 3y ago

The people that create the content you consume only have so many hours in the day, just like you. They need to pay the rent, buy groceries, get their kids braces, just like the test of us. It seems immoral and unrealistic to expect that for free. Consume it and support them or don't consume it and don't support them but the attitude that you're entitled to it is a little slimy.

jonathanstrange 3y ago
Huh? Why would it be immoral? I'm producing free content myself, e.g. my open source repositories have permissive licenses like MIT, I run a blog, have put some of my music online, etc. Seriously, chances are almost 100% percent that you are massively benefiting right now from completely free of charge software that some guys developed for free in their spare time (perhaps even decades ago) - how immoral of you!
- dncornholio 3y ago
  What are these mental gymnastics? You're practically saying nobody is allowed to make money for their content because you don't. Where is the logic in this?
  - jonathanstrange 3y ago
    You misunderstood me entirely. People can sell their content for whatever price they like. For example, I sell my science fiction and fantasy novels although I could give them away for free. I also used to sell shareware in the past and plan to sell commercial, proprietary software in the future. People can freely decide whether they want to sell the content they've created or give it away for free. If it's the former, they should sell it, and if it's the latter, they should give it away for free. They just cannot and ought not rely on business models that restrict how people display information on their devices that has been sent to them voluntarily. As I said in the beginning, I have no quirks with Youtube going subscription-only.
- nightski 3y ago
  I'm not the parent and would not say it's immoral but being able to produce content for free is a form of privilege. Not everyone has that luxury. Let's face it we live in a time where engineers make an absurd amount of money for the services they provide.
account42 3y ago
No, making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross. Making that transaction indirect via psychological manipulation using intermediaries is even worse. Discover better ways to support people who do useful work. Or rather, re-discover them since they are older than ads.
- throw10920 3y ago
  > making every human exchange a financial transaction is gross You seem to think that YouTube is "every human exchange". I'm going to let that speak for itself.
  - account42 3y ago
    I made no such claim so the only thing you are letting speak is your lack of reading comprehension.
- musictubes 3y ago
  This is nuts. So movies shouldn’t charge either right? Or TV shows. Where is the line between something that you think should be free and what someone needs to be compensated for in order to make it? That line is determined by the creators. The people making money on YouTube do it as a full time gig why shouldn’t they get paid? Clearly if they weren’t they would be forced to do something else instead of video making. YouTube is an amazing platform. It has allowed people to make videos about things they want and allowed people interested in that content to find it. Allowing people to pay (in various ways) for what they want means that other people can step up and provide that service instead of doing something else. A good heuristic for when financial transactions are “gross” is if you are dealing with strangers or not. If you call your spouse from work and ask them to make and bring you a sandwich for lunch we would be horrified if they said it’ll cost you $20. On the other hand, no one should feel offended if you get charged when you call up a stranger to do the same thing. There are different incentives at work in different spheres of life. Society depends on strangers doing things for other strangers. Google the Fatal Conceit to get the full picture. Bottom line is that there is nothing “gross” either for paying for something you want from a stranger or of them being paid for something they did for you.