Comment on Facepalm

• stebo02@sopuli.xyz ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You mean the content they provide made by creators who only make a living through Patreon and donations?

  source

  • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    What absolute nonsense, over half of YouTube’s ad revenue goes to creators. The site itself is also phenomenally expensive to run.

    source

    • stebo02@sopuli.xyz ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I don’t care what it costs to run YouTube. All I hear from the creators is “Support us on Patreon because YouTube doesn’t pay” and they sure ain’t asking us to buy YouTube premium.

      source

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I have literally seen 2 creators ever bring up youtube red, saying that yes subscribers do make up a more significant percentage of their revenue and did help a little bit when videos got demonetized. Every creator is saying some sort of the “I don’t want all my eggs in one basket, I can’t trust these platforms” argument.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Support us on Patreon

        They don’t make a lot of money. Neither does YouTube.

        because YouTube doesn’t pay

        Who said that?

        source
• mememuseum@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Google ran Youtube at a loss for years to draw everyone in and now that there’s no real competition (yet), are tightening the screws. Very similar to how Walmart will sell stuff at a loss to bankrupt locally owned stores and then raise their prices.

  Exploitive megacorporation can pound sand. It wasn’t a bad experience back when it was a single short ad before every video. Now I’ve had a wonderful ad free experience for years because of ad blockers. Why would I downgrade the experience and pay for it?

  source
• Synthead@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You can pay for things you want. That’s fine.

  Google is attempting to remove the freedom of viewing HTML the way I want to view it from my own devices. While they’re free to run their website the way they want to, the principle of attempting to remove your freedom of choice is not only a bad look, but violating.

  These two things are different, and one does not negate the validity on the other.

  source

  • Jaccident@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I am sorry but that argument simply doesn’t make an awful lot of sense to me. Unless I am missing a facet, you are saying that your autonomy outstrips their rights? If we were to make an analogue version of that argument would your autonomy to use your hands how you see fit, allow for you to walk into a shop and take something without paying? It seems like, unless I’ve missed something, that’s the analogy.

    Commerce and indeed society has always been a balance of personal autonomy and rules, with YouTube you’re going to a website and circumventing their chosen rules. I might not agree with YouTube’s methods, but I don’t think I can get behind the argument they are impinging on your technical rights any more than Tesco does if you try to half-inch a chocolate bar.

    source

    • Synthead@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You’re getting my two points mixed up.

      For my first example, paying, let’s say you subscribe to a newspaper. You pay a monthly fee, and the newspaper comes to your house. Nothing special.

      For the second example, let’s say you have a free, ad-supported magazine. Once you obtain the magazine, how you read it and what you do with it is up to you. If you want to go as far as to cut the ads out before you read it, you can do that. And you should be able to do that if you want to, because the magazine is in the privacy of your home.

      Ad-supported websites are no different whatsoever. The web server gives you HTML, JavaScript, some media, and together, it suggests a way for your browser to render the page. Once you download the assets, you’ve acquired the “free magazine,” and your personal browser, in the privacy of your home on your own machine, decides how it should be displayed.

      Imagine if there was a way for the ad-supported magazine to attempt to force you into spending 10 seconds on each page with ads. This sounds silly, but this is what Google is attempting to do. HTTP responses are nothing but simple chunks of data. You can use telnet to retrieve it without a browser, if you wanted. It’s simply a virtual analog to pages in a magazine.

      source

      • Jaccident@lemm.ee ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s a great analogy and helps me understand your argument much better. There is something I think you’ve missed though, which is that advertisers pay to be in the publication, and they pay at the point the print occurs. Rendering in your browser is the analog to hitting the print button, not putting it on a server to be pulled down. In your analogy, the advertiser has paid already before you consume the magazine; but for YouTube the advertisers don’t pay as their adverts are never compiled into the magazine. If you want to write a browser that still calls the ads api and plays the video in the background so YouTube gets the ad revenue but you have “cut it out” then I don’t imagine google would care half as much.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Well the creators I like don’t see it as a good relationship. They keep leaving for Twitch, Patreon, Nebula, or quitting on content creation. If I’m a fan of them, I need to listen to their concerns about how YouTube is constantly threatening their livelihood.

  source
• Hylactor@sopuli.xyz ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The bully part comes in when YouTube music is rolled into the cost. I would pay for youtube premium if all I got was a premium YouTube (and therefore the price was substantially lower). But what they’re doing is leveraging the popularity of YouTube to try and force the bolstering of YouTube music subscribers. Furthermore, they are currently increasing the price for premium in several markets. So the already too high cost is temporary at best and nearly guaranteed to go up even further with absolutely no increase in benefits. Paying to remove ads seems fine, but what they are attempting to do goes beyond that simple quid pro quo. They are being coercive and indirect to a degree I find unethical. Thus, bully.

  source
• CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  “Create the problem, sell the solution.”

  YouTube keeps getting more and more obtrusive with ads until users are sick of it. Annoying me into paying you is not going to work.

  source
• helenslunch@feddit.nl ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  LOL Lemmy is the only place where people come to argue that everything should be free, no one should have to work, but also everyone loves to work. People around here are completely delusional.

  source
• sleepy555@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’ve imagined this as per your instructions. I don’t understand the point of this exercise.

  source
• SailorMoss@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I haven’t used YouTube logged in since they force merged YouTube accounts with Google accounts. This make me a bit harder to track and my data slightly less valuable. I don’t like that my data will still being used to create an advertising profile even if I pay. If one of the features of YouTube premium was they would never sell any of my data across all Google services then I would be willing to pay for it.

  source