• danA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn’t get money from you just watching the video.

    • tabular@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Paying to access content makes a lot more sense that hoping someone willingly watches an advert on their own hardware.

      An indirect, alternate could be universal basic income - which makes it easier for people to choose less profitable options.

      • danA
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        A lot of people either don’t want to pay, or can’t pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we’re a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.

    • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      If it were sensibly prized I would have no issue with paying for YouTube. But seeing as they almost ask for the same as Netflix and co while not producing any content, I decided for the adblocker instead

      • manxu@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        They do not produce content, but they share 70% of revenue with the creators. You can argue that’s not enough, but it’s definitely more than Netflix et al pay their content creators.