3 ms·
> To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple. Resolving that the poor must endure advertising to be subsidised by the wealthy is anti-poor and
by closewith 2y ago
> To me, being anti-ads is being anti-poor, plain and simple.
Resolving that the poor must endure advertising to be subsidised by the wealthy is anti-poor and anti-person.
A more reasonable take is that all humans should have reasonable access to services through the fruits of their labour, and a situation where wealth inequality makes this infeasible should be rectified.
- fastball 2y agoHow exactly are you planning to adjust the situation so that someone in Liberia making $2.50/day can afford a YouTube subscription?
- oneeyedpigeon 2y agoThis is just a general point about globalisation and selling to different markets. Obviously, a YouTube subscription should cost a Liberian a proportional amount, not the same as a wealthy US citizen. Do YouTube advertisers make as much money from the average Liberian as they do from the average American?
- fastball 2y agoYouTube is a US company with US costs. It might not be worth it to provide the service at a rate that Liberians can afford. The reason they do so now is because the ad-driven model allows them to extract a lot more value out of the US (or other more affluent) customers than those people would reasonably be willing to pay for.
- int_19h 2y agoOne wonders if there's be a lot more local competitors to services like YouTube in an ad-free world, then. Where the revenues would boost the local economy rather than US.
- closewith 2y agoWell, the moral and true answer is that invest into the developing world until everyone has the ability to earn a living wage and can afford small fees like this should they choose. Anything else is anti-poor.
- account42 2y agoAnd if anything, ad-supported services to the poor often means outcompeting services provided by those communities themselves and ends with transferring even more wealth to silicon valley techbros.