8 ms·

I don't understand how people feel righteous in being furious about it. Imagine 100% of users using adblocks. How can the site function? Are they charity? If

by ssijak 3y ago

I don't understand how people feel righteous in being furious about it. Imagine 100% of users using adblocks. How can the site function? Are they charity? If you get value from the site, there is a premium option, and you will see no ads (plus other features). If you don't have money to pay, or don't want to, you can use it and have some ads. I know they are annoying, but common you expect Youtube to be charity?

diggan 3y ago
If YouTube launched today with ads and blocking adblockers, people wouldn't have the same reaction. Either they'd be fine with it, or they'd stop using it, and a small minority would try to work around it. But people got used to YouTube first without any sort of ads at all, then a small bit of ads, then a lot of ads. Now another change from what people are used to is introduced, where they try to block adblockers, so of course people will have a reaction. Not saying it's "ethically OK" or whatever, just trying to reason about why people think like they do. I do understand it somewhat. Imagine if HN suddenly started having proper ads (not just job ads like today), then the community would also react to it, as we've built our expectations on how it is today.
- piva00 3y ago
  YouTube went slicing the salami to display more ads over time. It got to a point where I decided to pay them for the "Premium Lite" subscription since the only feature I wanted was "no ads", I didn't care about downloads, YouTube Music, or whatever other offerings they have, I just wanted no ads and was happily paying for it. Then they killed that subscription tier, I just got an email with 30-day notice that my Premium Lite subscription wouldn't exist anymore and I had to upgrade to Premium, that was the last straw and I'm happily using ad blockers and will continue using it for as long as they work. I tried to pay for it, they fucked me over, I have no ethical issues with using an ad blocker, it's the only power I have left. That's the core issue, they slowly degraded the experience to show more ads while also removing ways to pay for a no ads feature without the cruft of other unnecessary features, I won't pay for them.
  - rychco 3y ago
    Completely agree. I would happily disable my Adblock (on YouTube only, general internet is still unusable without it) if I could pay a lower price just for this feature. I strongly suspect this is also the case for the overwhelming majority of current/potential premium customers.
- 3D30497420 3y ago
  Agreed with this, but my main issue is the price. In Europe, the family plan is €23.99. In contrast, Netflix is €12.99 (2 devices, 1080p). Now they obviously have very different economics and features, but in my regular use I don't really care about that, I just see double the cost for YouTube. This is doubly annoying since most of the YouTube channels I watch earn almost nothing from YouTube and instead subsist on money from sponsors. YouTube is obviously providing "free" hosting, management tools, and traffic to these channels. However, YouTube also spends nothing on content creation and assumes none of the risk. Oh, and I'm also paying for YouTube Music, which I never use. So it just seems like an expensive, bad deal as a consumer. And my alternative is the "free" site which is has an appalling number of commercials and keeps getting worse. So bad deals all around.
  - jnsaff2 3y ago
    Also I find it very hard to not be cynical about what google does my data even if I pay for Youtube. I would be surprised if they did not learn from my viewing history what my interests are and then try to sell my eyeballs outside of youtube for much more money. Also as a counter point to myself or actually rather to the whole targeted ads thing: where I can't block youtube ads (mostly iphone) I get the dumbest effing ads that I would never click or have zero interest in. About 80% are casino, gambling, betting, etc .. absolutely zero chance I would try any of that. Rest is either feminine products or served in a language I find offensive. They have the data on me but fail to do anything useful with it.
    - jsnell 3y ago
      You've almost certainly told them not to use the data (either any data, or just YouTube watch history, which have separate controls), and they're honoring that request. But you've now built some contorted mental model where you think they must obviously be lying about while also being completely incompetent at using said data. Just how hard is it to believe that they're not lying in the first place?
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
- zelphirkalt 3y ago
  There is a problem with this of course. It is like a bait and switch kinda thing. Creators uploaded their content to the platform that was without ads. Their contributions to the content of the platform is what makes or breaks the product. Now they see the platform being ruined. Maybe YouTube just needs to scale back a bit. Maybe it should never have gotten this big in the first place. Maybe a "community supports it" model would work, if it was smaller. But YouTube is now designed as a money grab (regardless of whether it is a net plus for Google in the end). In an alternative universe YouTube would run libre code and would be open to anyone looking at the code and deploying it on their own servers, community driven and financed project etc. I certainly will not feel sorry for a company like Google, when they run a platform that covers more dark pattern than most other websites combined and don't share what exactly happens with user data. Google extracts more than enough money out of unethically obtained user data. I don't think we need to be "afraid" that they could go out of business any time soon.
yreg 3y ago
Also, on monetized channels, it's the content creator who has put that many ads in there. They can choose to not do that, see e.g. Asmongold's channel[0] with zero ads. (To be fair, this option is not available to the smallest non-monetized channels.) But somehow people are angry at YouTube instead of their beloved content creators. (I use uBlock to block ads.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV
- EduardoBautista 3y ago
  YouTube fills the role of the scapegoat. Creators are never blamed for choosing the path that pays them the most. Artists playing at venues that use Ticketmaster is a similar situation. Sure, some of these artists can _choose_ not to perform at these venues, just like the YouTube creators can _choose_ not to upload videos to YouTube. Scapegoat as a service.
- 3D30497420 3y ago
  My understanding is most smaller channels earn peanuts from YouTube. Some channels I subscribe to occasionally break out their finances and direct YouTube payments are usually pretty small and irregular. This makes direct sponsorships almost a necessity for full-time creators. In any event, I don't mind these since they are easy to skip and at least the creator is getting the vast majority of the money.
  - otteromkram 3y ago
    Unpopular opinion: YouTube shouldn't be a career. "Creators" include what? People reacting to other videos? People pulling dumb/dangerous pranks? All for likes and subscribers? Those using the platform to show off a handmade knife that's available for purchase or demo some animation they made, will continue to do well. Those relying on ad-based revenue for money are not. I'm okay with that.
    - piva00 3y ago
      Creators also include a lot of educational content, why shouldn't it be a career if it's financially viable? What a strange take on what should or shouldn't be a career. There's lots of dumb content on YouTube but there was already a lot of dumb content on TV before that (reality shows, stupid History Channel "documentaries", gossip news programs, etc.).
falloutx 3y ago
Explain to me why is Youtube important at all? If the code runs on my computer, I should be able to stop parts of it.
- yreg 3y ago
  >If the code runs on my computer, I should be able to stop parts of it. Feel free to, but expect that YouTube will try to make it inconvenient for you.
papa0101 3y ago
People have every right to be furious about it though. Look at amazon prime: they've now introduced ads for paying customers. Want no ads? - pay more. What will stop youtube from doing the same? After all, shareholders must appeased. Where does it end?
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  No idea why the downvotes, this really happened and it will happen again.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > What will stop youtube from doing the same? Nothing. And given it's their company, they get to offer their products/services however they wish. If you don't find value in it, stop using it. > After all, shareholders must appeased. Where does it end? As someone who owns an S&P 500 index fund, which has Alphabet as a component, I would like to see returns to help fund my retirement. When customers push back.
debok 3y ago
I used to not mind the Youtube ads, but it became a nuisance lately. I installed an adblocker for the first time somewhere mid-2023. If I knew that youtube would continue to show me one skippable ad for every ~10 minutes, I would gladly disable my ad-blocker for them. Banner ads and side-bar ads are also fine.
genman 3y ago
Normal ads are fine for me, but it is about forced to watch video ads. I don't like to be interrupted in Internet, it's not a bloody TV.
- gnz11 3y ago
  What even is a normal ad? It's not as if the ad industry is some benign entity casually showing users random banner images or sponsor logos. Ads are now aggressive, privacy invasive entities that follow you around, spying on your every purchase and page view.
TheMode 3y ago
Why does it matter if people feel righteous? Just let them pirate, and if indeed not enough people follow what YouTube desires, let it shut down.
- RamRodification 3y ago
  > let it shut down It *is* effectively being shut down *for pirates* (if you can call them that, not sure). Those are the users who are complaining. It's a little weird that those users feel so justified in being angry about it.
reportgunner 3y ago
My brother in Christ do you seriously believe Youtube doesn't have money ?
iKevinShah 3y ago
I went premium a couple of months back and oh my - what a change. Dont think I would be able to go back to non-premium version.
ChatGTP 3y ago
I feel that Google was never upfront with me about their business model and their intentions from the beginning. The fact that I was realistically the product for a long time has just made me too jaded to give them money. They moved the goalposts too. It was free, then got ads and more ads and what's next? Will it just be like Amazon Prime where I now have ads even though I pay for a subscription? Occasionally I think about buying YT premium but then I just think about how scummy the company is how their attention grabbing model is just ruining my friends relationships with their kids (they're all addicted to YouTube, try blame the parents, but I don't think it's their fault) and I just can't bring myself to give them money at this stage. I'd go as far to say that I'd probably boycott the service altogether if I was forced between giving them money or watching a high volume of ads. I've already boycotted them for search, years of tracking and selling my info without any real opt out option or clear warnings about it, fuck them, I don't forget.
bakugo 3y ago
Google makes billions in profit every year, yet here you are talking about them as if they're a small company struggling to get by. I'd gladly pay for premium if I knew that money would be invested in making the website better for its users, but that's just not how they operate. The only reason I still use Youtube is because there's no alternative.
- throw0101d 3y ago
  > Google makes billions in profit every year […] Yes, and they only offer products/services because they generate profit. Which is why there are ads on Youtube—because they help generate profit. People find value in watching Youtube videos (howtos, tutorials, news, vlogs, etc), and for providing that valuable service, Youtube/Google/Alphabet wishes to (a) at least be able to cover their bills (server, DCs, salaries), (b) some extra reward/return.
  - xigoi 3y ago
    The value comes from the videos themselves, not from the service. If the videos were hosted elsewhere, I’d gladly stop bothering Google with my traffic.
    - throw0101d 3y ago
      > The value comes from the videos themselves, not from the service. And the value that the service to creators is that they pay $0 for hosting, have a large viewing potential, have a comment system which they don't have to run/host themselves, and are able to monetize their videos fairly easily. How many videos would be made if creators suddenly have to deal with all of that? The value of the videos being created exists at all is because the creators don't have to worry about infrastructure. > If the videos were hosted elsewhere, I’d gladly stop bothering Google with my traffic. If.
jacquesm 3y ago
Bait-and-switch. That's why people are pissed off. Besides that Google is getting plenty of money already.
thunderbong 3y ago
Isn't Youtube owned by Google? Whenever something is posted about Youtube, I see comments like this, as if they're a startup company trying to make money and the whole world is trying to undermine them by blocking the ads. IMHO, Youtube just happens to be another way that Google makes money. So, yes, it is a bit infuriating. Originally, Youtube became big by showing copyright material and no ads. And now that they are big, owned by Google, and have changed their tactics, I think it's perfectly reasonable for all their viewers to change theirs.
jacek 3y ago
"Charity" made me chuckle. YouTube by itself had an exponentially growing revenue since first introducing ads. In 2022 the revenue was at almost $30 billion (maybe this will better show that amount: $30,000,000,000) [1]. So yeah, go ahead and defend a monopolistic corporation that came to that position by basically doing bait and switch, and ridicule a small minority of people who just want to decide what they run and don't on their own devices. __________________ [1] https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/youtube-stats#youtube-revenue https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/youtube-stats#youtube-reve...
- schnebbau 3y ago
  What would their revenue be if everyone blocked ads?
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    Maybe they'd have to offer a normal paid for service and stop being a strange predatory company. I pay for search now, I'd pay for a service like YT that had nothing to do with Google so long as my privacy was respected.
- yreg 3y ago
  How is revenue relevant? Talk about their net profit.
  - jacek 3y ago
    Alphabet (Google) publishes revenue for YT, but profits only for the whole company.
bamboozled 3y ago
Do you remember when they removed the right to see downvotes on videos? That was it for me. At that point they said, "hey fuck you, we're going to ram whatever we want down your throat and you won't even be able to assess how others feel about this video." That was the minute I decided I won't be paying and I'll just use an ad-blocker.
CalRobert 3y ago
I don't expect YT to be a charity, but I do think its current market position is a monopoly (or close enough as doesn't matter) which is worth more scrutiny. It also seems likely that they got to their current market share by being massively subsidized for over a decade, and not needing to run (many) ads. How many services would have launched but thought "nah, we can't compete with Google's infinite money machine subsidizing our competitor"? Nebula is worth a look, though.
- piva00 3y ago
  It's pretty much what Yanis Varoufakis brings up on "Technofeudalism", Google created a digital feud with YouTube, heavily subsidised it until there was virtually no competition and now just lives by extracting rent from everyone on the platform: ads' buyers, users (we pay either Premium or with our data), content creators, etc. YT can change the rules of the game and there's nothing anyone can do about it, they will keep extracting rent now that their platform is basically a fiefdom. Without competition, without alternatives, we all depend on the digital land that Google took control of, just like serfs and peasants. I miss the Open Web.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    It'll be even better when all websites block non-Google browsers by default thanks to WEI attestation. Maybe we can have an edgy underground web again. (the fediverse kinda sorta feels a little like this sometimes)
avgcorrection 3y ago
Imagine. > Imagine 100% of users using adblocks. Then why did the search engine giant choose to buy YouTube?

by ssijak 3y ago

diggan 3y ago

If YouTube launched today with ads and blocking adblockers, people wouldn't have the same reaction. Either they'd be fine with it, or they'd stop using it, and a small minority would try to work around it. But people got used to YouTube first without any sort of ads at all, then a small bit of ads, then a lot of ads. Now another change from what people are used to is introduced, where they try to block adblockers, so of course people will have a reaction. Not saying it's "ethically OK" or whatever, just trying to reason about why people think like they do. I do understand it somewhat. Imagine if HN suddenly started having proper ads (not just job ads like today), then the community would also react to it, as we've built our expectations on how it is today.

piva00 3y ago
YouTube went slicing the salami to display more ads over time. It got to a point where I decided to pay them for the "Premium Lite" subscription since the only feature I wanted was "no ads", I didn't care about downloads, YouTube Music, or whatever other offerings they have, I just wanted no ads and was happily paying for it. Then they killed that subscription tier, I just got an email with 30-day notice that my Premium Lite subscription wouldn't exist anymore and I had to upgrade to Premium, that was the last straw and I'm happily using ad blockers and will continue using it for as long as they work. I tried to pay for it, they fucked me over, I have no ethical issues with using an ad blocker, it's the only power I have left. That's the core issue, they slowly degraded the experience to show more ads while also removing ways to pay for a no ads feature without the cruft of other unnecessary features, I won't pay for them.
- rychco 3y ago
  Completely agree. I would happily disable my Adblock (on YouTube only, general internet is still unusable without it) if I could pay a lower price just for this feature. I strongly suspect this is also the case for the overwhelming majority of current/potential premium customers.
3D30497420 3y ago
Agreed with this, but my main issue is the price. In Europe, the family plan is €23.99. In contrast, Netflix is €12.99 (2 devices, 1080p). Now they obviously have very different economics and features, but in my regular use I don't really care about that, I just see double the cost for YouTube. This is doubly annoying since most of the YouTube channels I watch earn almost nothing from YouTube and instead subsist on money from sponsors. YouTube is obviously providing "free" hosting, management tools, and traffic to these channels. However, YouTube also spends nothing on content creation and assumes none of the risk. Oh, and I'm also paying for YouTube Music, which I never use. So it just seems like an expensive, bad deal as a consumer. And my alternative is the "free" site which is has an appalling number of commercials and keeps getting worse. So bad deals all around.
- jnsaff2 3y ago
  Also I find it very hard to not be cynical about what google does my data even if I pay for Youtube. I would be surprised if they did not learn from my viewing history what my interests are and then try to sell my eyeballs outside of youtube for much more money. Also as a counter point to myself or actually rather to the whole targeted ads thing: where I can't block youtube ads (mostly iphone) I get the dumbest effing ads that I would never click or have zero interest in. About 80% are casino, gambling, betting, etc .. absolutely zero chance I would try any of that. Rest is either feminine products or served in a language I find offensive. They have the data on me but fail to do anything useful with it.
  - jsnell 3y ago
    You've almost certainly told them not to use the data (either any data, or just YouTube watch history, which have separate controls), and they're honoring that request. But you've now built some contorted mental model where you think they must obviously be lying about while also being completely incompetent at using said data. Just how hard is it to believe that they're not lying in the first place?
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 3y ago
zelphirkalt 3y ago
There is a problem with this of course. It is like a bait and switch kinda thing. Creators uploaded their content to the platform that was without ads. Their contributions to the content of the platform is what makes or breaks the product. Now they see the platform being ruined. Maybe YouTube just needs to scale back a bit. Maybe it should never have gotten this big in the first place. Maybe a "community supports it" model would work, if it was smaller. But YouTube is now designed as a money grab (regardless of whether it is a net plus for Google in the end). In an alternative universe YouTube would run libre code and would be open to anyone looking at the code and deploying it on their own servers, community driven and financed project etc. I certainly will not feel sorry for a company like Google, when they run a platform that covers more dark pattern than most other websites combined and don't share what exactly happens with user data. Google extracts more than enough money out of unethically obtained user data. I don't think we need to be "afraid" that they could go out of business any time soon.

yreg 3y ago

Also, on monetized channels, it's the content creator who has put that many ads in there. They can choose to not do that, see e.g. Asmongold's channel[0] with zero ads. (To be fair, this option is not available to the smallest non-monetized channels.) But somehow people are angry at YouTube instead of their beloved content creators. (I use uBlock to block ads.) [0] https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV https://www.youtube.com/@AsmonTV

EduardoBautista 3y ago
YouTube fills the role of the scapegoat. Creators are never blamed for choosing the path that pays them the most. Artists playing at venues that use Ticketmaster is a similar situation. Sure, some of these artists can _choose_ not to perform at these venues, just like the YouTube creators can _choose_ not to upload videos to YouTube. Scapegoat as a service.
3D30497420 3y ago
My understanding is most smaller channels earn peanuts from YouTube. Some channels I subscribe to occasionally break out their finances and direct YouTube payments are usually pretty small and irregular. This makes direct sponsorships almost a necessity for full-time creators. In any event, I don't mind these since they are easy to skip and at least the creator is getting the vast majority of the money.
- otteromkram 3y ago
  Unpopular opinion: YouTube shouldn't be a career. "Creators" include what? People reacting to other videos? People pulling dumb/dangerous pranks? All for likes and subscribers? Those using the platform to show off a handmade knife that's available for purchase or demo some animation they made, will continue to do well. Those relying on ad-based revenue for money are not. I'm okay with that.
  - piva00 3y ago
    Creators also include a lot of educational content, why shouldn't it be a career if it's financially viable? What a strange take on what should or shouldn't be a career. There's lots of dumb content on YouTube but there was already a lot of dumb content on TV before that (reality shows, stupid History Channel "documentaries", gossip news programs, etc.).

falloutx 3y ago

Explain to me why is Youtube important at all? If the code runs on my computer, I should be able to stop parts of it.

yreg 3y ago
>If the code runs on my computer, I should be able to stop parts of it. Feel free to, but expect that YouTube will try to make it inconvenient for you.

papa0101 3y ago

People have every right to be furious about it though. Look at amazon prime: they've now introduced ads for paying customers. Want no ads? - pay more. What will stop youtube from doing the same? After all, shareholders must appeased. Where does it end?

ChatGTP 3y ago
No idea why the downvotes, this really happened and it will happen again.
throw0101d 3y ago
> What will stop youtube from doing the same? Nothing. And given it's their company, they get to offer their products/services however they wish. If you don't find value in it, stop using it. > After all, shareholders must appeased. Where does it end? As someone who owns an S&P 500 index fund, which has Alphabet as a component, I would like to see returns to help fund my retirement. When customers push back.

debok 3y ago

I used to not mind the Youtube ads, but it became a nuisance lately. I installed an adblocker for the first time somewhere mid-2023. If I knew that youtube would continue to show me one skippable ad for every ~10 minutes, I would gladly disable my ad-blocker for them. Banner ads and side-bar ads are also fine.

genman 3y ago

Normal ads are fine for me, but it is about forced to watch video ads. I don't like to be interrupted in Internet, it's not a bloody TV.

gnz11 3y ago
What even is a normal ad? It's not as if the ad industry is some benign entity casually showing users random banner images or sponsor logos. Ads are now aggressive, privacy invasive entities that follow you around, spying on your every purchase and page view.

TheMode 3y ago

Why does it matter if people feel righteous? Just let them pirate, and if indeed not enough people follow what YouTube desires, let it shut down.

RamRodification 3y ago
> let it shut down It *is* effectively being shut down *for pirates* (if you can call them that, not sure). Those are the users who are complaining. It's a little weird that those users feel so justified in being angry about it.

reportgunner 3y ago

My brother in Christ do you seriously believe Youtube doesn't have money ?

iKevinShah 3y ago

I went premium a couple of months back and oh my - what a change. Dont think I would be able to go back to non-premium version.

ChatGTP 3y ago

I feel that Google was never upfront with me about their business model and their intentions from the beginning. The fact that I was realistically the product for a long time has just made me too jaded to give them money. They moved the goalposts too. It was free, then got ads and more ads and what's next? Will it just be like Amazon Prime where I now have ads even though I pay for a subscription? Occasionally I think about buying YT premium but then I just think about how scummy the company is how their attention grabbing model is just ruining my friends relationships with their kids (they're all addicted to YouTube, try blame the parents, but I don't think it's their fault) and I just can't bring myself to give them money at this stage. I'd go as far to say that I'd probably boycott the service altogether if I was forced between giving them money or watching a high volume of ads. I've already boycotted them for search, years of tracking and selling my info without any real opt out option or clear warnings about it, fuck them, I don't forget.

bakugo 3y ago

Google makes billions in profit every year, yet here you are talking about them as if they're a small company struggling to get by. I'd gladly pay for premium if I knew that money would be invested in making the website better for its users, but that's just not how they operate. The only reason I still use Youtube is because there's no alternative.

throw0101d 3y ago
> Google makes billions in profit every year […] Yes, and they only offer products/services because they generate profit. Which is why there are ads on Youtube—because they help generate profit. People find value in watching Youtube videos (howtos, tutorials, news, vlogs, etc), and for providing that valuable service, Youtube/Google/Alphabet wishes to (a) at least be able to cover their bills (server, DCs, salaries), (b) some extra reward/return.
- xigoi 3y ago
  The value comes from the videos themselves, not from the service. If the videos were hosted elsewhere, I’d gladly stop bothering Google with my traffic.
  - throw0101d 3y ago
    > The value comes from the videos themselves, not from the service. And the value that the service to creators is that they pay $0 for hosting, have a large viewing potential, have a comment system which they don't have to run/host themselves, and are able to monetize their videos fairly easily. How many videos would be made if creators suddenly have to deal with all of that? The value of the videos being created exists at all is because the creators don't have to worry about infrastructure. > If the videos were hosted elsewhere, I’d gladly stop bothering Google with my traffic. If.

jacquesm 3y ago

Bait-and-switch. That's why people are pissed off. Besides that Google is getting plenty of money already.

thunderbong 3y ago

Isn't Youtube owned by Google? Whenever something is posted about Youtube, I see comments like this, as if they're a startup company trying to make money and the whole world is trying to undermine them by blocking the ads. IMHO, Youtube just happens to be another way that Google makes money. So, yes, it is a bit infuriating. Originally, Youtube became big by showing copyright material and no ads. And now that they are big, owned by Google, and have changed their tactics, I think it's perfectly reasonable for all their viewers to change theirs.

jacek 3y ago

"Charity" made me chuckle. YouTube by itself had an exponentially growing revenue since first introducing ads. In 2022 the revenue was at almost $30 billion (maybe this will better show that amount: $30,000,000,000) [1]. So yeah, go ahead and defend a monopolistic corporation that came to that position by basically doing bait and switch, and ridicule a small minority of people who just want to decide what they run and don't on their own devices. __________________ [1] https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/youtube-stats#youtube-revenue https://www.usesignhouse.com/blog/youtube-stats#youtube-reve...

schnebbau 3y ago
What would their revenue be if everyone blocked ads?
- bamboozled 3y ago
  Maybe they'd have to offer a normal paid for service and stop being a strange predatory company. I pay for search now, I'd pay for a service like YT that had nothing to do with Google so long as my privacy was respected.
yreg 3y ago
How is revenue relevant? Talk about their net profit.
- jacek 3y ago
  Alphabet (Google) publishes revenue for YT, but profits only for the whole company.

bamboozled 3y ago

Do you remember when they removed the right to see downvotes on videos? That was it for me. At that point they said, "hey fuck you, we're going to ram whatever we want down your throat and you won't even be able to assess how others feel about this video." That was the minute I decided I won't be paying and I'll just use an ad-blocker.

CalRobert 3y ago

I don't expect YT to be a charity, but I do think its current market position is a monopoly (or close enough as doesn't matter) which is worth more scrutiny. It also seems likely that they got to their current market share by being massively subsidized for over a decade, and not needing to run (many) ads. How many services would have launched but thought "nah, we can't compete with Google's infinite money machine subsidizing our competitor"? Nebula is worth a look, though.

piva00 3y ago
It's pretty much what Yanis Varoufakis brings up on "Technofeudalism", Google created a digital feud with YouTube, heavily subsidised it until there was virtually no competition and now just lives by extracting rent from everyone on the platform: ads' buyers, users (we pay either Premium or with our data), content creators, etc. YT can change the rules of the game and there's nothing anyone can do about it, they will keep extracting rent now that their platform is basically a fiefdom. Without competition, without alternatives, we all depend on the digital land that Google took control of, just like serfs and peasants. I miss the Open Web.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  It'll be even better when all websites block non-Google browsers by default thanks to WEI attestation. Maybe we can have an edgy underground web again. (the fediverse kinda sorta feels a little like this sometimes)

avgcorrection 3y ago

Imagine. > Imagine 100% of users using adblocks. Then why did the search engine giant choose to buy YouTube?