4 ms·

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 c

• 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.)
      • gausswho 1y ago
        I'm unconvinced. I suggest that YT's outlay is a sneeze among the budget of the US. In my estimation, all nations are lagging in the definition of what constitutes a public utility. In a decade we will be facepalming why advertisements were even needed for this common infrastructure.
        • PurestGuava 1y ago
          Most things are a sneeze compared to the budget of the federal government of the US, that doesn't mean that's a reasonable expectation for the US government (or any government) to run them.
          • gausswho 1y ago
            I challenge the idea that private enterprise could solve the scaling component better than a government could. We've reached this comedy of ads and surveillance capitalism because private strategies are flailing.
            • agent327 1y ago
              As a thought experiment, is it realistic to get every tax payer to pay for funny cat videos? Because that will be a reality in your non-capitalist utopia. Or maybe there just won't be any cat videos, because the state has decreed them unnecessary or even harmful? How about political messages, is the state going to allow those to be posted on its platform? There are bound to be a few that go against state policy... You could argue that the same is true for broadcast TV, and I would 100% agree. The state has no business running or even funding public television.
              • fc417fc802 1y ago
                If it followed the USPS model there would be a retention fee for the uploader and a transfer fee for the downloader, both based on size. There would also likely be a stipulation that fees not dip below the actual costs incurred which would protect private entities that might wish to compete. (Such fee minimums can be seen with some municipal internet service regulations.)
• krelian 1y ago
  The mental gymnastics some will go through to justify being a cheapskate...