3 ms·

I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy. To be clear, I'm no

I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy. To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.

jdb9001 5d ago
Do they not have a little sponsor skip thing? Where like if many people skip a segment, itll pop up like hey, wanna skip? I mean, thats about all they can do besides forcing youtubers to disclose exact segment lengths which would concretely hurt them whereas this provides a little sort of breathing room, or just straight up ban them, both of which would dramatically hurt the platform.
- Gareth321 5d ago
  I understand they have an opt-out feature now. With positive interaction one can skip one sponsored segment (which works most of the time). The problem is that it's not automated. It required digging one's phone out of their pocket, or reaching for the remote. That's still really annoying. To point: it's still full of ads, even if they have the skip button now. YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads.
- LoganDark 5d ago
  YouTube Premium now has "skip ahead" which is basically this. Or you can install SponsorBlock and get a much better version for free.
nephihaha 5d ago
I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour. YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.
- choo-t 5d ago
  Wikipedia predates Youtube by five years. Unpaid cooperation of human to generate knowledge or entertainment predates YouTube by tens of thousands years.
  - nephihaha 5d ago
    YouTube is part of Alphabet, one of the biggest corporations in the world. It can easily afford to pay people. It isn't co-operation, it's a corporation which takes the work of other people and makes lots of money off them, without paying them properly (or at all in many cases). Wikipedia's content is used by LLMs and other such outlets who also profit off unpaid labour. It is a basic right of people to be able to afford to live. It's easy to work for free when you have family money but you cannot support yourself when you don't.
- Gareth321 5d ago
  > I'm in favour of people making money from their work. That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads. > YouTube isn't paying people properly I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
  - johnnyanmac 5d ago
    >I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago? So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).
SoftTalker 5d ago
Do you only watch videos from creators who are not trying to make money? If they couldn't make money, 80% of the content worth watching would not be produced. Premium works for me. Is it perfect, no. But there's that saying about perfect being the enemy of good.
- deleted 5d ago
  [deleted]
jasonlotito 5d ago
> To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads. I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable.

jdb9001 5d ago

Do they not have a little sponsor skip thing? Where like if many people skip a segment, itll pop up like hey, wanna skip? I mean, thats about all they can do besides forcing youtubers to disclose exact segment lengths which would concretely hurt them whereas this provides a little sort of breathing room, or just straight up ban them, both of which would dramatically hurt the platform.

Gareth321 5d ago
I understand they have an opt-out feature now. With positive interaction one can skip one sponsored segment (which works most of the time). The problem is that it's not automated. It required digging one's phone out of their pocket, or reaching for the remote. That's still really annoying. To point: it's still full of ads, even if they have the skip button now. YouTube could tell content creators not to include sponsorships. The terms are long and onerous. Of course content creators would be upset and they would make less money. Ultimately my issue is that YouTube advertises an ad free experience with Premium and it still has a LOT of ads.
LoganDark 5d ago
YouTube Premium now has "skip ahead" which is basically this. Or you can install SponsorBlock and get a much better version for free.

nephihaha 5d ago

I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour. YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.

choo-t 5d ago
Wikipedia predates Youtube by five years. Unpaid cooperation of human to generate knowledge or entertainment predates YouTube by tens of thousands years.
- nephihaha 5d ago
  YouTube is part of Alphabet, one of the biggest corporations in the world. It can easily afford to pay people. It isn't co-operation, it's a corporation which takes the work of other people and makes lots of money off them, without paying them properly (or at all in many cases). Wikipedia's content is used by LLMs and other such outlets who also profit off unpaid labour. It is a basic right of people to be able to afford to live. It's easy to work for free when you have family money but you cannot support yourself when you don't.
Gareth321 5d ago
> I'm in favour of people making money from their work. That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads. > YouTube isn't paying people properly I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.
- johnnyanmac 5d ago
  >I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago? So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).

SoftTalker 5d ago

Do you only watch videos from creators who are not trying to make money? If they couldn't make money, 80% of the content worth watching would not be produced. Premium works for me. Is it perfect, no. But there's that saying about perfect being the enemy of good.

deleted 5d ago
[deleted]

jasonlotito 5d ago

> To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads. I think it's clear. I don't want YouTube going in and editing movies and creator videos removing any form of advertising. Maybe you want them deleting that content. But the average person realizes what Premium means by no ads. Being obtuse or willfully ignorant isn't reasonable.