4 ms·
LOL at "incidental" You know, it's just Google's main revenue stream. By several orders of magnitude.
by waterlesscloud 11y ago
LOL at "incidental"
You know, it's just Google's main revenue stream. By several orders of magnitude.
- eropple 11y agoincidental, adj.: accompanying but not a major part of something. Which is why I picked the phrasing I did; advertising is completely and inarguably incidental to the consumption of the content that somebody is on YouTube to actually see. Is it Google's main revenue stream? Sure. Is it significantly impactful to the consumer? No, not really. But let's take a step back. Do you actually intend to defend your assertion that advertising is the same in kind as literally taking money out of somebody's pocket? Or is this just the tacit admission that, no, you can't, so let's play definitional games?
- waterlesscloud 11y agoThere's no question whatsoever that Google/Youtube would not exist if they didn't have advertising revenue. This is not in any way a debatable point. It's not even a little bit "incidental". My point, no matter how you attempt to recast it, is that Google/Youtube depend on an addictive dynamic. They do. You keep coming back. You keep watching the next video. they make money when you do that. You can try to recast that all you want, but if people didn't keep clicking on the next result or next video, Google/YouTube wouldn't make money. Why do you think there's a related videos sidebar on YouTube? Why do YouTube videos end with more links to other videos?
- reinhardt 11y agoGoogle et al. make money from advertisers, not from "addicted" people clicking on cat videos on Youtube. If you can't see the difference from the slot machines business model, I don't know what to tell you.