7 ms·

people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in so

people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.

scbzzzzz 1y ago
My major problem with ads is the disrespect of my privacy. People deserve to get paid for the hard work they put. I have immense respect for creators . But at the same time, these yt creators are relying on google ads . Which are intrusive, doesn't acknowledge and care about privacy. If you turn on ad privacy, you see gambling, scams ,crypto ads. How is that responsible? You as a creator is ok with getting money and ok with indirectly making people addicted, fall for scams? That's not right. I am ok with sponser ads and am against sponsorblock. They are not tracking me, violating my privacy and telling me about new products . youtube subscription doesn't stop youtube for collecting you data and use it for ads during other google service .
mystified5016 1y ago
You're right, someone has to pay to make these AI generated ads for fake boner pills in the middle of my documentary. Won't someone think of the poor ad creators?
mitthrowaway2 1y ago
YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise. Why should I reward that by paying them?
- cebert 1y ago
  Ok, well either pay or don’t use YouTube then if you don’t want ads.
  - spencerflem 1y ago
    My current thought re: piracy is that I never pirate unless I'd be happy if the company I'm pirating from went out of business.
  - cwillu 1y ago
    The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's. You building your company on something that can be legally circumvented is not my problem.
    - lxgr 1y ago
      And that's how we'll eventually get mandatory DRM on all Youtube videos. We're already halfway there with ad blocker blockers anyway; once the sum of "lost revenue due to collateral damage of blocked users on old/non-DRM-supporting browser versions" and "increased revenue due to finally defeating ad blockers" is positive, it'll happen.
    - apitman 1y ago
      > The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's I've got bad news for you
      - chii 1y ago
        and that's why people choosing chrome over firefox has that bad news.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - StackRanker3000 1y ago
      ”I can get away with it, therefore it’s OK” is an interesting moral philosophy
- hombre_fatal 1y ago
  You can keep bringing up Google, but you're still glossing over the part where you're not paying the people creating the content you're watching. Seems awfully convenient.
  - baobun 1y ago
    If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
    - hombre_fatal 1y ago
      So if I don't like Visa and Mastercard, do I also get moral carte blanche to not pay anyone because hey I'm totally urging them to only use merchants that I prefer? Sounds like awfully convenient motivated reasoning.
      - spaceribs 1y ago
        Are you asking what we should do about this situation? Split up any and all monopolies, and nationalize what should provide a common good such as payment networks and internet infrastructure.
        matwood 1y ago
        As a Google shareholder, I would love for YT to be spun out.
      - daniel-grigg 1y ago
        That’s how the market works. You avoid paying extra taxes than required right? Even though that denies the government extra funding. The only difference being one has been decided as wrong and the other is fine.
        StackRanker3000 1y ago
- eadmund 1y ago
  > Why should I reward that by paying them? Do you want to have a great YouTube experience? Paying for it gets you that. I watch YouTube videos frequently. Never see an ad. It’s great.
cvoss 1y ago
If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content. But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable. (And so many of the good ones do, quite successfully.)
- Uehreka 1y ago
  YouTube gives you two (2!) ways to pay for content. You can choose to pay with money, or you can choose to pay with your time and attention. If you don’t like paying with your time and attention, then either pay with money, or don’t use the service. This “It charges you for not delivering crap.” line is bullshit. Serving video content costs money, they’ve given you the choice of how to pay for it, and you don’t like the choices but want to keep getting the content.
  - gausswho 1y ago
    Worse. It charges you by building a profile about you. 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.
    - manquer 1y ago
      The money goes to creators as well, not just pay for video streaming . On average creators get paid more for premium views than they get from ads .
    - PurestGuava 1y ago
      > 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google. If it's that easy, why has nobody done it? (Hint: governments don't want to run YouTube, probably shouldn't run YouTube, and nobody else wants or can afford the immense costs that come with running YouTube.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
shakna 1y ago
I block ads, everywhere, because I keep getting epilepsy-inducing ones. The browser is my agent, just like my screenreader is. Google is to blame here - and I'm saying that as an author who does advertise there because of marketshare.
- hahn-kev 1y ago
  So is your DVD player but it doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the movies
  - Hasnep 1y ago
    No, but if someone is handing out free DVDs with adverts on them I can put a sticker over the adverts. If the adverts are in the movie, I'm allowed to skip them.
  - shakna 1y ago
    Google are free to ban me, free to not hand me the data. But if I tell them who I am, what agent I'm using, and then they hand me data... I'm also free to throw half that data in the bin. Especially if I'm protecting myself.
belorn 1y ago
Those are two different problems. Paying creators and requiring online platforms to follow laws and not participate in crime like fraud are not the same issue. If they want to sell a service in exchange for payment, then they are free to do so. For legal reasons they are not doing that. The explicit legal definition used by lawyers and politicians is that advertisement supported services are not a payment, but an optional content that the viewer might or might not look at. This optional aspect of advertisement is how laws distinguish between it and a sale. From a legal perspective there is a difference between selling a sample product for 1 cent, compared to giving it away for free. One is a sale, and the other is a free giveaway, and thus they are under different legal definitions. There are similar legal theory for when a platform should be held legal responsible their products, for their advertisement, and when local laws applies and how. News papers, radio, and TV has each been forced to handle local advertisement laws and regulation, and there is a reason why most had departments to curate which advertisement they could publish. They also get held responsible if they break local law.
beeflet 1y ago
no. maybe you can get funding through some sort of patronage, but I'm not going to watch ads. even if I did pay for a subscription, they would find a way to jack up the price or insert new ads while collecting my data. The landscape isn't competitive enough. People like this idea that "if you don't pay for the product, you are the product" but it's not complete. Just because you pay for a product doesn't mean you're not the product. We used to pay for cable TV, only to still get ads. We used to pay for windows licenses, now with ads! I will continue to waste their bandwidth while blocking ads until they hopefully go bankrupt and get replaced by some bittorrent-like p2p solution.

scbzzzzz 1y ago

My major problem with ads is the disrespect of my privacy. People deserve to get paid for the hard work they put. I have immense respect for creators . But at the same time, these yt creators are relying on google ads . Which are intrusive, doesn't acknowledge and care about privacy. If you turn on ad privacy, you see gambling, scams ,crypto ads. How is that responsible? You as a creator is ok with getting money and ok with indirectly making people addicted, fall for scams? That's not right. I am ok with sponser ads and am against sponsorblock. They are not tracking me, violating my privacy and telling me about new products . youtube subscription doesn't stop youtube for collecting you data and use it for ads during other google service .

mystified5016 1y ago

You're right, someone has to pay to make these AI generated ads for fake boner pills in the middle of my documentary. Won't someone think of the poor ad creators?

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise. Why should I reward that by paying them?

cebert 1y ago
Ok, well either pay or don’t use YouTube then if you don’t want ads.
- spencerflem 1y ago
  My current thought re: piracy is that I never pirate unless I'd be happy if the company I'm pirating from went out of business.
- cwillu 1y ago
  The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's. You building your company on something that can be legally circumvented is not my problem.
  - lxgr 1y ago
    And that's how we'll eventually get mandatory DRM on all Youtube videos. We're already halfway there with ad blocker blockers anyway; once the sum of "lost revenue due to collateral damage of blocked users on old/non-DRM-supporting browser versions" and "increased revenue due to finally defeating ad blockers" is positive, it'll happen.
  - apitman 1y ago
    > The browser is my agent, and it will do my bidding, not google's I've got bad news for you
    - chii 1y ago
      and that's why people choosing chrome over firefox has that bad news.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - StackRanker3000 1y ago
    ”I can get away with it, therefore it’s OK” is an interesting moral philosophy
hombre_fatal 1y ago
You can keep bringing up Google, but you're still glossing over the part where you're not paying the people creating the content you're watching. Seems awfully convenient.
- baobun 1y ago
  If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
  - hombre_fatal 1y ago
    So if I don't like Visa and Mastercard, do I also get moral carte blanche to not pay anyone because hey I'm totally urging them to only use merchants that I prefer? Sounds like awfully convenient motivated reasoning.
    - spaceribs 1y ago
      Are you asking what we should do about this situation? Split up any and all monopolies, and nationalize what should provide a common good such as payment networks and internet infrastructure.
      - matwood 1y ago
        As a Google shareholder, I would love for YT to be spun out.
    - daniel-grigg 1y ago
      That’s how the market works. You avoid paying extra taxes than required right? Even though that denies the government extra funding. The only difference being one has been decided as wrong and the other is fine.
      - StackRanker3000 1y ago
eadmund 1y ago
> Why should I reward that by paying them? Do you want to have a great YouTube experience? Paying for it gets you that. I watch YouTube videos frequently. Never see an ad. It’s great.

cvoss 1y ago

If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content. But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable. (And so many of the good ones do, quite successfully.)

Uehreka 1y ago
YouTube gives you two (2!) ways to pay for content. You can choose to pay with money, or you can choose to pay with your time and attention. If you don’t like paying with your time and attention, then either pay with money, or don’t use the service. This “It charges you for not delivering crap.” line is bullshit. Serving video content costs money, they’ve given you the choice of how to pay for it, and you don’t like the choices but want to keep getting the content.
- gausswho 1y ago
  Worse. It charges you by building a profile about you. 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.
  - manquer 1y ago
    The money goes to creators as well, not just pay for video streaming . On average creators get paid more for premium views than they get from ads .
  - PurestGuava 1y ago
    > 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google. If it's that easy, why has nobody done it? (Hint: governments don't want to run YouTube, probably shouldn't run YouTube, and nobody else wants or can afford the immense costs that come with running YouTube.)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

shakna 1y ago

I block ads, everywhere, because I keep getting epilepsy-inducing ones. The browser is my agent, just like my screenreader is. Google is to blame here - and I'm saying that as an author who does advertise there because of marketshare.

hahn-kev 1y ago
So is your DVD player but it doesn't mean you don't have to pay for the movies
- Hasnep 1y ago
  No, but if someone is handing out free DVDs with adverts on them I can put a sticker over the adverts. If the adverts are in the movie, I'm allowed to skip them.
- shakna 1y ago
  Google are free to ban me, free to not hand me the data. But if I tell them who I am, what agent I'm using, and then they hand me data... I'm also free to throw half that data in the bin. Especially if I'm protecting myself.

belorn 1y ago

Those are two different problems. Paying creators and requiring online platforms to follow laws and not participate in crime like fraud are not the same issue. If they want to sell a service in exchange for payment, then they are free to do so. For legal reasons they are not doing that. The explicit legal definition used by lawyers and politicians is that advertisement supported services are not a payment, but an optional content that the viewer might or might not look at. This optional aspect of advertisement is how laws distinguish between it and a sale. From a legal perspective there is a difference between selling a sample product for 1 cent, compared to giving it away for free. One is a sale, and the other is a free giveaway, and thus they are under different legal definitions. There are similar legal theory for when a platform should be held legal responsible their products, for their advertisement, and when local laws applies and how. News papers, radio, and TV has each been forced to handle local advertisement laws and regulation, and there is a reason why most had departments to curate which advertisement they could publish. They also get held responsible if they break local law.

beeflet 1y ago

no. maybe you can get funding through some sort of patronage, but I'm not going to watch ads. even if I did pay for a subscription, they would find a way to jack up the price or insert new ads while collecting my data. The landscape isn't competitive enough. People like this idea that "if you don't pay for the product, you are the product" but it's not complete. Just because you pay for a product doesn't mean you're not the product. We used to pay for cable TV, only to still get ads. We used to pay for windows licenses, now with ads! I will continue to waste their bandwidth while blocking ads until they hopefully go bankrupt and get replaced by some bittorrent-like p2p solution.