3 ms·
Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majori
by sanswork 1y ago
Why should you have the right to dictate that no one is allowed to pay for their services by watching ads? You're suggesting cutting off services for the majority of the planet because you are in a financial position to pay for what you want.
- bjourne 1y agoGoogle has exploited network effects and the essentially free labor of millions of content creators to create a video platform no one can compete with. I don't find it the least immoral for me to block ads, while I watch someone play a game I like on a channel with less than 2k views/video. It's like running a farm at a huge deficit until everyone else goes out of business and then jacking up prices.
- sanswork 1y agoGoogle has offered free hosting for millions of content creators and once they are profitable offers them a revenue source. It further helps those creators by trying to stop freeloaders. You talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. Google offers an easy way to support creators and avoid as. If you were really concerned with creator well being you could go that route or Subscribe to the patron or similar of every creator you enjoy and bypass YouTube entirely.
- inferiorhuman 1y agoYou talk about Google exploiting creators while at the same time talking about removing their income. You talk about Google as if that's their primary source of income. Most of the folks I watch on Youtube hype up the other platforms e.g. Patreon they use for income. Judging by the outro credits it looks like there are plenty of people happy to throw money at these folks via other platform as well. Clear your cookies and check out youtube sometime. Perhaps once they stop pushing vile right wing nonsense, anti-vax conspiracy theories, and assorted brain rot I'd consider tossing money at Google.
- sanswork 1y agoIt's a lot of creators only income from creating. Once you get some scale there are certainly better ways depending on your niche. Again justification for why your free loading is actually a moral act.
- inferiorhuman 1y ago"a lot" If you're small time Google won't pay out enough to make it your sole source of income so you'll probably seek out other ways of monetizing your videos (e.g. Patreon, merch). If you're large enough you're gonna seek out more stable source of income that won't threaten to demonetize you at the drop of a hat (e.g. Patreon, merch). Me? I think it's immoral to run 30 minute ads hyping up hate churches and 15 minute ads hawking missile launchers. e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/what_is_the_point_of_ridiculously_long_ads_on/ https://old.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/17lcv5e/...
- estimator7292 1y agoGoogle has made untold thousands of dollars by spying on me and stealing my personal and private information to sell to other ad companies. Why don't I have a right to that money? Why should I then have to pay google even more either directly with cash or indirectly through more advertising and spying? Google has made FAR more than enough money by spying on me than it actually costs them for me to use adblock. Bonus, I don't have to watch AI generated ads for boner pills with a celebrity's fake face on it
- sanswork 1y ago[flagged]
- bjourne 1y agoMost content creators have no ad revenue at all and didn't create their videos with the intent to profit from them. Yet they help build YouTube's back catalogue and get nothing in return for it. They have no Patreon accounts or donation links. I am a "content creator" too. Not like I give a shit if people watch videos of me playing guitar with their ad blockers on.
- sanswork 1y agoThey get free hosting and streaming software for it on top of free discoverability.
- bjourne 1y agoProstitutes get free sex.
- sanswork 1y agoThat's a really weird reply.
- soraminazuki 1y agoIt's called sarcasm.
- dontlaugh 1y agoThat many using ad blockers would suggest there is something like a democratic mandate for disallowing ads as a business model.
- sanswork 1y agoThose are just people who expect things for free. Free loaders will always exist and they will always try to come up with justifications for why their free loading is actually noble and not just selfish.
- ndriscoll 1y agoIf the "price" to load a webpage were that you run a crypto miner or give a site access to upload whatever files it feels from your computer, would you do it? Or would blocking such malware make you a free loader?
- sanswork 1y agoI wouldn't use the site but yes using the site and not doing that would make you a free loader.
- ndriscoll 1y agoSo I presume you browse with a vulnerable webp library or something in case sites you do browse would like to use that functionality? You can't know whether they wanted to use it if your browser silently blocks their attempts.
- scotty79 1y agoSame reason they shouldn't be able to pay with gambling, scamming, prostitution or their organs. Advertisement industry is all a scam. It's a privately levied tax that lets sellers win competition with themselves and ultimately the customer pays, both in price of products and in their attention as well.
- sanswork 1y agoWithout advertising how does anyone get visibility into new products? You are proposing winner take all markets when you propose banning advertising.
- ndriscoll 1y agoRetailers could always highlight high value products they are offering within their storefront (without being compensated by manufacturers to do so; that would be a scam ad).
- sanswork 1y agoHow do retailers find new products? Why would they bother highlighting new products if there is no pull demand from community awareness. You'd just pick one vendor and agree to only sell their products for better rates
- ndriscoll 1y agoThey publish contact information for vendors? They reach out to vendors through their published sales channels? Go to industry trade events or follow industry periodicals where that's the purpose? They'd highlight new products because they believe they're good. The solution to your last problem is to make exclusive dealing contracts always illegal and actually enforce antitrust law.
- sanswork 1y agoAll your solutions are forms of advertising.
- estimator7292 1y agoWhy should private corporations have unlimitied license to propagandize and intentionally psychologically manipulate the entire populace? Why should private corporations with no oversight or meaningful consequences have the unlimited and unchallenged right to market drugs to kids? Why should they be allowed to post enormous flashing billboards on our roads? Why do these corporations have more right to common public spaces than the people do?
- sanswork 1y agoI haven't arguing they have a right to any of those things. When you resort to straw manning it's generally a good time to step back and reconsider your stance.
- soraminazuki 1y agoCalling out your euphemisms is not straw manning. It's the logical conclusion. When you're bending over backwards to defend surveillance capitalism, it's a good time to reconsider your moral principles. Sorry, "but the public wants to get screwed" is a complete joke of an argument.