4 ms·
Giving them money rewards them for pulling a bait and switch where they set the price of hosting plus watching video at free, but are now trying to extort the e
by mindslight 1y ago
Giving them money rewards them for pulling a bait and switch where they set the price of hosting plus watching video at free, but are now trying to extort the ecosystem after so many people spent effort uploading. Don't encourage hostile behavior.
- frollogaston 1y agoWhat did you want them to do instead, put ads or charge money per view starting in 2005?
- mindslight 1y agoSure, that would have been one honest option. Dumping an artificially free option into the market crowded out other options from being adopted or even developed.
- frollogaston 1y agoThis is how all tech companies got funded, and still do. YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect, it's just that nobody made anything comparable that was actually better.
- mindslight 1y ago> This is how all tech companies got funded, and still do This isn't really germane to what's right. We all know how the surveillance industry operates - subsidizing investment, lock in, and then enshittification. And sure, it seems to work for it in a pragmatic sense. But that doesn't mean we should find virtue in rewarding it, which was what the original argument is about. > YouTube doesn't even have much of a network effect I'm not interested in arguing with goalposts being moved, especially by ignorance.
- paulcole 1y agoIs it more right for you to expect something for nothing?
- mindslight 1y agoYoutube themselves created that expectation, so yes.
- paulcole 1y agoHow did you expect them to pay for the cost of the service? The cost of hosting still seems to be free. Isn’t it the watching that comes with a cost?