4 ms·

Does this app has any creator monetization in mind, or does 'your way' means 'fuck you, i'm not paying you for shit, i'm just taking it'? None of it is "your co

by pxoe 2y ago

Does this app has any creator monetization in mind, or does 'your way' means 'fuck you, i'm not paying you for shit, i'm just taking it'? None of it is "your content", or their content, it's just someone else's content they're leeching on. "full ownership" - of what? literally just, what are their thoughts on that. do people deserve being paid? or don't? and if they don't and it's not worth paying for, how is it still worth watching? what is this bizarre mix of disdain and yet desire and entitlement to things, that they'll try to get them in whatever roundabout way, instead of just not watching the thing?

Liquix 2y ago
creators deserve to be paid. viewers deserve to not be psychologically manipulated by advertisements and algorithms. insisting viewers "pay" by subjecting themselves to ads is an unethical business model; refusing to support the practice is a rational reaction.
- pxoe 2y ago
  "rational" as in, rationalizing the contradiction of "not paying" and "getting content anyway". just don't watch. don't support the practice entirely. it's not really as much of a stance as it is just a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave. like, the content has already manipulated you even without you paying for it and refusing to pay for it, by making you do this little dance, of trying to get it and trying to rationalize getting it.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - cxr 2y ago
    > a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave > just don't watch Is your position a value judgement on the morality of not watching ads + technology that enables you to watch as few as possible? Or on the societal fixation to consume junk? If the former, please elaborate on your position as it relates to VCRs and DVRs of the sort that are built-in to DirecTV receivers.
    - pxoe 2y ago
      i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating. "i hate this so much but i have to get it cause i apparently need it so badly". something being deserving to be obtained, yet not deserving to be paid for. and most of all, somebody feeling so entitled to it that they just can't actually refuse it completely.
      - cxr 2y ago
        You didn't answer the question, and overall you're being very mercurial in this thread. Write coherently. > i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating You're calling watching a TV show without watching the commercials "piracy"? That's a very broad definition of "piracy" that I'd venture has almost no support outside of your comments here.
        speff 2y ago
        I'd call it piracy in a way. Ads are how that specific piece of content is made available - whether it be for paying file hosting costs, creator living expenses, video production, etc. Consuming media without providing compensation for it (through ad views in this case) would meet my definition of new-age piracy.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        You want adblock developers to be caged by the state, like piracy site providers?
        speff 2y ago
        No
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
navane 2y ago
No one is taking YouTube away from you. People make choices. There are many alternatives yet to explore. The network effect, the fact that many people, including me, are on the platform, is a benefit to the platform, more users more worth, yet no one is paying me to be there either.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
weberer 2y ago
Well its a two way street. Take it up with Google for not offering paid API access so people wouldn't have to rely on hacky web scraping solutions.
paweladamczuk 2y ago
Creator support is probably the reason why Grayjay doesn't have SponsorBlock integration. What it's trying to bypass is walls being put in place by Youtube after it established itself as a monopoly by leveraging technologies that worked and succeeded because of their no-walls philosophy.
- figmert 2y ago
  Grayjay does have SponsorBlock
  - paweladamczuk 2y ago
    Good to know, I thought they wouldn't add it
augstein 2y ago
I pay for Youtube premium to not have to see ads and potentially be manipulated by them. Yet I still have to watch a lot of ads there, since for a large chunk of content creators, the economic model of Youtube doesn’t seem to work and they additionally include inline ads.
- AwesomeLemon 2y ago
  You'll probably like the Sponsorblock extension that automatically skips over the ad-read sections of the video. https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/
cxr 2y ago
There is way too much incoherence and righteous indignation in this comment for it to be the top thread here. > "full ownership" - of what? By a reasonable and charitable reading: full ownership over your legally-obtained copy of the material that folks (the creators/rightsholders themselves) are publishing for gratis online for anyone to watch, and likely some non-gratis stuff that you are paying these creators for if you are a subscriber and decide to enter your account details into the app. This whole app looks to be a video player that works like an alternative frontend to the official players by e.g. YouTube, Twitch, and so on, in the vein of "unity of interface"[1] and a continuation of the spirit of the Miro player (see also: virtually every podcast app in existence). You seem, bizarrely, to be responding to it like a new KaZaA or Popcorn Time or other torrent-backed something-or-other. 1. <https://www-archive.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface https://www-archive.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface>
emaro 2y ago
Grayjay allows you to view member (pay only) content if you log in with an account that has access. That allows creators to monetize their content. I'm glad Grayjay includes an adblocker, I wouldn't use it otherwise.
- pxoe 2y ago
  So they're stripping away people's monetization just to insert themselves as a middleman for their own monetization? Very cool!

by pxoe 2y ago

Liquix 2y ago

creators deserve to be paid. viewers deserve to not be psychologically manipulated by advertisements and algorithms. insisting viewers "pay" by subjecting themselves to ads is an unethical business model; refusing to support the practice is a rational reaction.

pxoe 2y ago
"rational" as in, rationalizing the contradiction of "not paying" and "getting content anyway". just don't watch. don't support the practice entirely. it's not really as much of a stance as it is just a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave. like, the content has already manipulated you even without you paying for it and refusing to pay for it, by making you do this little dance, of trying to get it and trying to rationalize getting it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- cxr 2y ago
  > a contrived way to excuse away getting the thing you simultaneously hate and crave > just don't watch Is your position a value judgement on the morality of not watching ads + technology that enables you to watch as few as possible? Or on the societal fixation to consume junk? If the former, please elaborate on your position as it relates to VCRs and DVRs of the sort that are built-in to DirecTV receivers.
  - pxoe 2y ago
    i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating. "i hate this so much but i have to get it cause i apparently need it so badly". something being deserving to be obtained, yet not deserving to be paid for. and most of all, somebody feeling so entitled to it that they just can't actually refuse it completely.
    - cxr 2y ago
      You didn't answer the question, and overall you're being very mercurial in this thread. Write coherently. > i just find the tension and contradictions of piracy kinda fascinating You're calling watching a TV show without watching the commercials "piracy"? That's a very broad definition of "piracy" that I'd venture has almost no support outside of your comments here.
      - speff 2y ago
        I'd call it piracy in a way. Ads are how that specific piece of content is made available - whether it be for paying file hosting costs, creator living expenses, video production, etc. Consuming media without providing compensation for it (through ad views in this case) would meet my definition of new-age piracy.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        wahnfrieden 2y ago
        You want adblock developers to be caged by the state, like piracy site providers?
        speff 2y ago
        No
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

navane 2y ago

No one is taking YouTube away from you. People make choices. There are many alternatives yet to explore. The network effect, the fact that many people, including me, are on the platform, is a benefit to the platform, more users more worth, yet no one is paying me to be there either.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

weberer 2y ago

Well its a two way street. Take it up with Google for not offering paid API access so people wouldn't have to rely on hacky web scraping solutions.

paweladamczuk 2y ago

Creator support is probably the reason why Grayjay doesn't have SponsorBlock integration. What it's trying to bypass is walls being put in place by Youtube after it established itself as a monopoly by leveraging technologies that worked and succeeded because of their no-walls philosophy.

figmert 2y ago
Grayjay does have SponsorBlock
- paweladamczuk 2y ago
  Good to know, I thought they wouldn't add it

augstein 2y ago

I pay for Youtube premium to not have to see ads and potentially be manipulated by them. Yet I still have to watch a lot of ads there, since for a large chunk of content creators, the economic model of Youtube doesn’t seem to work and they additionally include inline ads.

AwesomeLemon 2y ago
You'll probably like the Sponsorblock extension that automatically skips over the ad-read sections of the video. https://sponsor.ajay.app/ https://sponsor.ajay.app/

cxr 2y ago

There is way too much incoherence and righteous indignation in this comment for it to be the top thread here. > "full ownership" - of what? By a reasonable and charitable reading: full ownership over your legally-obtained copy of the material that folks (the creators/rightsholders themselves) are publishing for gratis online for anyone to watch, and likely some non-gratis stuff that you are paying these creators for if you are a subscriber and decide to enter your account details into the app. This whole app looks to be a video player that works like an alternative frontend to the official players by e.g. YouTube, Twitch, and so on, in the vein of "unity of interface"[1] and a continuation of the spirit of the Miro player (see also: virtually every podcast app in existence). You seem, bizarrely, to be responding to it like a new KaZaA or Popcorn Time or other torrent-backed something-or-other. 1. <https://www-archive.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface https://www-archive.mozilla.org/unity-of-interface>

emaro 2y ago

Grayjay allows you to view member (pay only) content if you log in with an account that has access. That allows creators to monetize their content. I'm glad Grayjay includes an adblocker, I wouldn't use it otherwise.

pxoe 2y ago
So they're stripping away people's monetization just to insert themselves as a middleman for their own monetization? Very cool!