3 ms·

I did not. I have no qualms "stealing" content from creators who prefer to stay in bed with a user-hostile service provider like Youtube. I will gladly pay con

I did not. I have no qualms "stealing" content from creators who prefer to stay in bed with a user-hostile service provider like Youtube. I will gladly pay content creators that leave youtube and set up their own distribution channel, though.

carlosjobim 3y ago
If you take off the hate-tinted glasses and think about YouTube without prejudice, then I think you could come to another conclusion. YouTube is one of very few places were an independent or small-time creator can publish their content just in the way they please and get paid for it without having to do anything else aside for publishing their work. That's incredible. That gives so many people a chance to make a living by their creativity. Compare with Spotify, which is the only other comparable platform that exists. They pay peanuts to their creators in comparison to YouTube. Instagram, Facebook and all other social media pay nothing at all. It would be cool if some other platform appeared, that paid creators better. But YouTube is the only platform letting anybody be a paid creator that exists for video. Expecting creators to set up their own distribution channel and payment platforms would mean that only creators who are also web developers deserve to be paid. YouTube in 2024 is also completely different to YouTube in 2014. It has much more quality content than all other streaming platforms combined, just because of the immense of amount of content there. If you set up your subscriptions right, it is a good experience.
- rglullis 3y ago
  Why should we let content creators off the hook, if the money they make is tainted and originally gained from a company that exploits user data and used its capital to outspend the competition until they were no more? Why is that only YouTube can pay so much? If no competitor can come close to them, does it occur to you that perhaps this is a problem?
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    > Why should we let content creators off the hook Of course you don't have to let them off the hook. If you don't like them, don't watch them. That's how boycotting works. You don't need to pay them any mind at all. There is plenty of room for competition against YouTube, as evident by YouTube not even being the largest service in the sector. That is still Netflix and cable TV. And they pay their content creators much more than YouTube do, but only the content creators that they choose for you to watch.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      They are not entitled to their business model. If a content creator wants money to let me watch a video, then they either make this explicitly by forcing a transaction or they make their content public with the hopes that a percentage of them will convert into ad views or sponsors. What they can not do is force me to watch the video on their terms or expect that the extensive distribution guarantees them an income. Simply "boycotting" won't do much here. The idea is to find a way to signal to content creators that relying on Youtube is a losing proposition.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        > They are not entitled to their business model Why not? They're not forcing anybody to watch their videos. You know this. And they're explicit about ad-blockers not being welcome. YouTube is not a losing proposition, it is the only platform accepting everybody as content creators. You haven't provided an alternative. But I hope that the entire platform becomes premium only and ad-free. That would be a fair solution for everybody.
        rglullis 3y ago
        > They're not forcing anybody to watch their videos. (...) You haven't provided an alternative. They operated their business at a loss until they were the only alternative. Remember Joost? Remember Vimeo? Again, why do you think that no other competitor managed to compete with YouTube? What is more likely to happen: Google has created a product so inherently good that no one can even come close to it, or Google has cheated its way into a winning position? > They're explicit about ad-blockers not being welcome. "Not being welcome" is not something they can enforce in a contract and there is already legal action against them in the EU, because they can not discriminate against users of ad-block without collecting user data. > But I hope that the entire platform becomes premium only and ad-free. That would be a fair solution for everybody. I wish that as well, but it would require them to willingly stop with their (unethical) practices that put them at an advantage. Do you realistically think this is going to happen?

carlosjobim 3y ago

If you take off the hate-tinted glasses and think about YouTube without prejudice, then I think you could come to another conclusion. YouTube is one of very few places were an independent or small-time creator can publish their content just in the way they please and get paid for it without having to do anything else aside for publishing their work. That's incredible. That gives so many people a chance to make a living by their creativity. Compare with Spotify, which is the only other comparable platform that exists. They pay peanuts to their creators in comparison to YouTube. Instagram, Facebook and all other social media pay nothing at all. It would be cool if some other platform appeared, that paid creators better. But YouTube is the only platform letting anybody be a paid creator that exists for video. Expecting creators to set up their own distribution channel and payment platforms would mean that only creators who are also web developers deserve to be paid. YouTube in 2024 is also completely different to YouTube in 2014. It has much more quality content than all other streaming platforms combined, just because of the immense of amount of content there. If you set up your subscriptions right, it is a good experience.

rglullis 3y ago
Why should we let content creators off the hook, if the money they make is tainted and originally gained from a company that exploits user data and used its capital to outspend the competition until they were no more? Why is that only YouTube can pay so much? If no competitor can come close to them, does it occur to you that perhaps this is a problem?
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  > Why should we let content creators off the hook Of course you don't have to let them off the hook. If you don't like them, don't watch them. That's how boycotting works. You don't need to pay them any mind at all. There is plenty of room for competition against YouTube, as evident by YouTube not even being the largest service in the sector. That is still Netflix and cable TV. And they pay their content creators much more than YouTube do, but only the content creators that they choose for you to watch.
  - rglullis 3y ago
    They are not entitled to their business model. If a content creator wants money to let me watch a video, then they either make this explicitly by forcing a transaction or they make their content public with the hopes that a percentage of them will convert into ad views or sponsors. What they can not do is force me to watch the video on their terms or expect that the extensive distribution guarantees them an income. Simply "boycotting" won't do much here. The idea is to find a way to signal to content creators that relying on Youtube is a losing proposition.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      > They are not entitled to their business model Why not? They're not forcing anybody to watch their videos. You know this. And they're explicit about ad-blockers not being welcome. YouTube is not a losing proposition, it is the only platform accepting everybody as content creators. You haven't provided an alternative. But I hope that the entire platform becomes premium only and ad-free. That would be a fair solution for everybody.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > They're not forcing anybody to watch their videos. (...) You haven't provided an alternative. They operated their business at a loss until they were the only alternative. Remember Joost? Remember Vimeo? Again, why do you think that no other competitor managed to compete with YouTube? What is more likely to happen: Google has created a product so inherently good that no one can even come close to it, or Google has cheated its way into a winning position? > They're explicit about ad-blockers not being welcome. "Not being welcome" is not something they can enforce in a contract and there is already legal action against them in the EU, because they can not discriminate against users of ad-block without collecting user data. > But I hope that the entire platform becomes premium only and ad-free. That would be a fair solution for everybody. I wish that as well, but it would require them to willingly stop with their (unethical) practices that put them at an advantage. Do you realistically think this is going to happen?