3 ms·

Everytime someone blocks an ad, someone else has to watch it. It's crazy to me how entitled people are and how completely blind they are to how the ad supporte

Everytime someone blocks an ad, someone else has to watch it. It's crazy to me how entitled people are and how completely blind they are to how the ad supported model works. Then these same people complain that youtube has no competitors. Yeah, no shit, who in their right mind would invest in a customer base like youtubes? Oh, that's right, Vid.me, and they went bankrupt in a year. Wonder why...

Aded1989 1y ago
Ads spread malware that threatens my financial security. Remove active content from online advertising and I'll disable my ad blocker.
kergonath 1y ago
> Everytime someone blocks an ad, someone else has to watch it. No, that’s not how it works, at all. I give money to some people on Patreon, I pay for Nebula, but I am never going to give Google a single euro willingly. I’ll leave YouTube in a heartbeat the moment the people I follow (whom I am already giving money otherwise) make their content available elsewhere.
- kennyadam 1y ago
  If they leave YouTube, they'll soon learn just how much they've been relying on Google's free bandwidth and storage for their videos. They'll either have to move to just another ad-supported service (who will almost certainly not have Google's infrastructure and thus higher costs) or you'll end up being asked to pay a lot more to their patreon.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  Just so you are aware, less than 1% of viewers actually give money directly to creators. It's good you do it, thank you, and people run at the opportunity to show everyone they are doing the right thing (creating an illusion of popularity), but I can tell you from having seen the stats - essentially nobody does it. Nebula, which you mention, has about 700k subscribers. Yet they host YouTube videos for creators who collectively have over 120M subscribers...that is a 0.6% conversion rate.
  - kergonath 1y ago
    > It's good you do it, thank you, and people run at the opportunity to show everyone they are doing the right thing (creating an illusion of popularity), but I can tell you from having seen the stats - essentially nobody does it. I believe you, really. I still prefer that than people profiting off me without my consent. There is hope, there are some media who manage with strategies ranging from complete paywalls (like Nebula, though I would be very curious to know how profitable it is for the uploaders) to the opposite (like the Guardian, who seem to be getting enough money despite very little friction to get to the articles). Thinking about good old-fashioned newspapers, most of the readership did not pay, either. There is no reason why a combination of subscribers, non-invasive advertising, and sponsorship could not accommodate a certain number of freeloaders. > Nebula, which you mention, has about 700k subscribers. Yet they host YouTube videos for creators who collectively have over 120M subscribers...that is a 0.6% conversion rate. Nebula has a chicken and egg problem, and YouTube has an infinitely broader reach. It certainly is not perfect. That said, I don’t think Nebula needs to make as much money as YouTube, just enough so that people can make a living producing good stuff instead of slop optimised for ads.
jorvi 1y ago
It's crazy to me how people are completely blind to inferring things. YouTube is no longer using ads to pay the bills. They're using them to be user hostile. Normally I would say "just use a different service". But YouTube is a de facto monopoly. Hence, if YouTube wants to act user hostile, you are well within your moral rights to be service hostile. The same people telling us to 'just watch ads' then complain when the web gets a bit more crappy the next week, when another service or site uses the shifted window of tolerable behaviour to become more user hostile in chase of a bigger cut of the loot.

Aded1989 1y ago

Ads spread malware that threatens my financial security. Remove active content from online advertising and I'll disable my ad blocker.

kergonath 1y ago

> Everytime someone blocks an ad, someone else has to watch it. No, that’s not how it works, at all. I give money to some people on Patreon, I pay for Nebula, but I am never going to give Google a single euro willingly. I’ll leave YouTube in a heartbeat the moment the people I follow (whom I am already giving money otherwise) make their content available elsewhere.

kennyadam 1y ago
If they leave YouTube, they'll soon learn just how much they've been relying on Google's free bandwidth and storage for their videos. They'll either have to move to just another ad-supported service (who will almost certainly not have Google's infrastructure and thus higher costs) or you'll end up being asked to pay a lot more to their patreon.
Workaccount2 1y ago
Just so you are aware, less than 1% of viewers actually give money directly to creators. It's good you do it, thank you, and people run at the opportunity to show everyone they are doing the right thing (creating an illusion of popularity), but I can tell you from having seen the stats - essentially nobody does it. Nebula, which you mention, has about 700k subscribers. Yet they host YouTube videos for creators who collectively have over 120M subscribers...that is a 0.6% conversion rate.
- kergonath 1y ago
  > It's good you do it, thank you, and people run at the opportunity to show everyone they are doing the right thing (creating an illusion of popularity), but I can tell you from having seen the stats - essentially nobody does it. I believe you, really. I still prefer that than people profiting off me without my consent. There is hope, there are some media who manage with strategies ranging from complete paywalls (like Nebula, though I would be very curious to know how profitable it is for the uploaders) to the opposite (like the Guardian, who seem to be getting enough money despite very little friction to get to the articles). Thinking about good old-fashioned newspapers, most of the readership did not pay, either. There is no reason why a combination of subscribers, non-invasive advertising, and sponsorship could not accommodate a certain number of freeloaders. > Nebula, which you mention, has about 700k subscribers. Yet they host YouTube videos for creators who collectively have over 120M subscribers...that is a 0.6% conversion rate. Nebula has a chicken and egg problem, and YouTube has an infinitely broader reach. It certainly is not perfect. That said, I don’t think Nebula needs to make as much money as YouTube, just enough so that people can make a living producing good stuff instead of slop optimised for ads.

jorvi 1y ago

It's crazy to me how people are completely blind to inferring things. YouTube is no longer using ads to pay the bills. They're using them to be user hostile. Normally I would say "just use a different service". But YouTube is a de facto monopoly. Hence, if YouTube wants to act user hostile, you are well within your moral rights to be service hostile. The same people telling us to 'just watch ads' then complain when the web gets a bit more crappy the next week, when another service or site uses the shifted window of tolerable behaviour to become more user hostile in chase of a bigger cut of the loot.