6 ms·

Youtube has had ads since 2007. And complaining about it becoming harder to circumvent ads is silly. Youtube has a clear business proposition, and anyone is fre

Youtube has had ads since 2007. And complaining about it becoming harder to circumvent ads is silly. Youtube has a clear business proposition, and anyone is free to not use youtube. Not like their is any real competition though, it only takes two second of business analysis to see that users want a video service where you foot all the costs and charge nothing (ads or subs) for it. Read about what happned to vid.me

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
I don't see the part of my comment where I said they didn't have ads. I did say that the ads were less awful. Also... if you're free to not use them but they have a monopoly, are you free to not use them? Nobody's forcing you to use Standard Oil; you're totally free to just not have oil.
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  Youtube doesn't have a monopoly. Nobody else wants to compete because just look at the comments in threads like this. Everyone is entitled to no-ads no-subscription. Again, read up on the story of vid.me, who actually was stealing market share from youtube for a while.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    It sounds like you're describing why they have a monopoly. If you want to argue that they don't have one, you would need to point at an alternative with even remotely equivalent content. (Edit: Even a paid alternative would be interesting; last time I looked Nebula only served a tiny subset of equivalent content) (There is perhaps an interesting discussion to be had in how they got/keep that monopoly; certainly I'm open to users not wanting to pay being a factor, but that seems like it would quickly devolve into "well Google dumped an absurd amount of money into them, killing off even the possibility of competitors" which is... even worse, in terms of being an unnatural monopoly)
    - Workaccount2 3y ago
      Again, please read the story of vid.me Youtube didn't kill vid.me, it's entitled user did.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

I don't see the part of my comment where I said they didn't have ads. I did say that the ads were less awful. Also... if you're free to not use them but they have a monopoly, are you free to not use them? Nobody's forcing you to use Standard Oil; you're totally free to just not have oil.

Workaccount2 3y ago
Youtube doesn't have a monopoly. Nobody else wants to compete because just look at the comments in threads like this. Everyone is entitled to no-ads no-subscription. Again, read up on the story of vid.me, who actually was stealing market share from youtube for a while.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  It sounds like you're describing why they have a monopoly. If you want to argue that they don't have one, you would need to point at an alternative with even remotely equivalent content. (Edit: Even a paid alternative would be interesting; last time I looked Nebula only served a tiny subset of equivalent content) (There is perhaps an interesting discussion to be had in how they got/keep that monopoly; certainly I'm open to users not wanting to pay being a factor, but that seems like it would quickly devolve into "well Google dumped an absurd amount of money into them, killing off even the possibility of competitors" which is... even worse, in terms of being an unnatural monopoly)
  - Workaccount2 3y ago
    Again, please read the story of vid.me Youtube didn't kill vid.me, it's entitled user did.