Comment on YouTube: 5 ads the norm now?
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 10 months agoI think one of the moral (?) objections to paying for YouTube versus paying for streaming services is that a streaming service actually creates (some) original content whereas YouTube merely hosts other people’s content. YouTube is only a facilitator and (ironically) not a creator. All of its content (both original and unoriginal) is produced by money that isn’t YouTube’s. They take zero risk and expect maximum returns.
Lonnie123@lemmy.world 10 months ago
YouTube hosts millions upon millions upon millions of videos for free, and they set up and maintain the ad network that gets creators the money (55% of the ad revenue goes to them, 45% to youtube). That is the value they provide, not the content they create. They dont take a “risk” per se (anymore, that risk was taken in the beginning), but they are 100% outlaying resources to maintain the youtube network/experience at great expense so that people can create, host, and profit on their website with no risk to the creator except wasted time.
Obviously not a simple thing to do otherwise tons of websites would be doing the same thing and YouTube would have lots of competition, but they don’t because its actually a very resource intensive process that literally - and I mean literally as in literally - no other company is willing to take on.
There is no moral objection, unless you find funding Google in any way immoral.
Its a mutually beneficial relationship with YouTube and the Creators. Youtube has reduced the risk of spending money on content creation but takes on all the work of maintaining everything youtube offers, and the creators have reduced the risk of financial/commerical resources needed to make money on their product. Neither could exist withou the other
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
I mean, yeah that’s mostly all true; but you’re kind of missing the point. Alphabet created the ad-soaked centralised monopoly you describe. They obviously shut down Google Video pretty quickly after buying YouTube. They bought-out or strangled competitors, leveraging their SE dominance, to get to where they are now, which is offering small pockets of content scattered about in an advertising platform. Alphabet knew what kind of monster they wanted to create and set about doing it. More adverts equals more profit. Profit must increase year on year. That’s how it works. I don’t begrudge Alphabet trying to fleece everybody - it’s how capitalism operates. I just don’t buy into the “good old Google letting me watch stuff for (almost) free” mantra.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yeah just that one little tiny exception that literally no one could agree with /s