4 ms·
Why can’t it be both? You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Also if they don’t profit how do you want them to monetize the creators? Don’t g
by michelsedgh 3y ago
Why can’t it be both? You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Also if they don’t profit how do you want them to monetize the creators? Don’t get me wrong I hate the ads, but the problem is there has to be some kind of profits for them or for anyone else to run a platform and not just youtube no?
- fsckboy 3y ago> You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? I don't expect for monopolists (of search, of ad, and also of video markets) to be given free rein to impose whatever terms they want. They provide me nothing for free, they are selling me
- michelsedgh 3y agoWhich free rein? They enforce the one thing that pays them by forcing us to watch ads on their platform is not free rein. Also which monopolies? For ads theres bing, DDG, Kagi and many others same as Youtube, I think, they have become so big because they historically provided a better service and people chose them as the main one. I don’t get much of what you are saying.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago> You don’t expect them to provide Youtube for free do you? Most people I know do expect that. They don't care about the economics of it.
- latexr 3y agoMy objection isn’t that YouTube makes a profit for Google, but that in their statement they skirt around that truth. They only mention the creators and word it as if that’s the reason they crack down on adblockers, when we all know that’s not the whole story. Own up to it! What I’m objecting to is them being disingenuous.