9 ms·

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

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
    - moooo99 1y ago
      Considering that is the framework FAANG in its entirety is based on, I find your reaction quite surprising
    - thowawatp302 1y ago
      That’s how google set up this relationship with their users. “What goes around comes around,” shouldn’t be surprising.”
    - chii 1y ago
      It's how the world has worked for a very long time, and i dont think that has changed much today.
    - spaceribs 1y ago
      I'm enjoying this holier-than-thou attitude that seems to pervade a lot of comments, as though following the "rules" is all we need to do and is morally justifiable. These "rules" weren't voted upon by either creators or consumers. Most of them are arbitrary and capricious. Features implemented by YouTube, like showing where people skip to the most, are also an attempt to cut into sponsorship dollars, was that within the "rules"? Let me be clear: Following the "rules" under these monopolistic circumstances is the philosophy of cowardice in the face of power and doesn't hold as much intellectual merit as you might think.
      - StackRanker3000 1y ago
        Did the person I was replying to say any of that? You’re putting words in both their mouth and mine I’m receptive to various arguments here that invoke power differentials, pragmatism, even deliberately breaking the terms of a service to help affect change, etc. I’m not necessarily someone who always follows the rules, and even though I do pay for YouTube I don’t view it as a real moral failing to use the free service with an ad blocker turned on The comment I responded to didn’t have any of that, it just boiled down to “I can do it and they can’t stop me, so they can suck a dick”. Maybe not the end of the world when it’s directed towards Alphabet, but I hope that mindset doesn’t extend to everyone they interact with
- probably_wrong 1y ago
  If YouTube agreed with this point of view they would put up a paywall, the same way neither Nebula nor Netflix are available for free.
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.

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
  - moooo99 1y ago
    Considering that is the framework FAANG in its entirety is based on, I find your reaction quite surprising
  - thowawatp302 1y ago
    That’s how google set up this relationship with their users. “What goes around comes around,” shouldn’t be surprising.”
  - chii 1y ago
    It's how the world has worked for a very long time, and i dont think that has changed much today.
  - spaceribs 1y ago
    I'm enjoying this holier-than-thou attitude that seems to pervade a lot of comments, as though following the "rules" is all we need to do and is morally justifiable. These "rules" weren't voted upon by either creators or consumers. Most of them are arbitrary and capricious. Features implemented by YouTube, like showing where people skip to the most, are also an attempt to cut into sponsorship dollars, was that within the "rules"? Let me be clear: Following the "rules" under these monopolistic circumstances is the philosophy of cowardice in the face of power and doesn't hold as much intellectual merit as you might think.
    - StackRanker3000 1y ago
      Did the person I was replying to say any of that? You’re putting words in both their mouth and mine I’m receptive to various arguments here that invoke power differentials, pragmatism, even deliberately breaking the terms of a service to help affect change, etc. I’m not necessarily someone who always follows the rules, and even though I do pay for YouTube I don’t view it as a real moral failing to use the free service with an ad blocker turned on The comment I responded to didn’t have any of that, it just boiled down to “I can do it and they can’t stop me, so they can suck a dick”. Maybe not the end of the world when it’s directed towards Alphabet, but I hope that mindset doesn’t extend to everyone they interact with
probably_wrong 1y ago
If YouTube agreed with this point of view they would put up a paywall, the same way neither Nebula nor Netflix are available for free.

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.