• Mcduckdeluxe@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    3 months ago

    Can I ask why people act like YouTube is so evil for trying to make money off their site? They provide a service I value and it costs money to do so. No disrespect to anyone who doesn’t want to watch ads or pay (like I do, I use it a LOT) but I don’t understand why some people seem to be personally insulted by the idea that they can’t get it for free forever with no strings attached.

    Honest question, please don’t flame me 🙏

    • mesamune@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 months ago

      I pay other sites for creators. So for me $$ isn’t the issue. Not when premium is less than 20.

      The biggest issue with YouTube for me is that their ads are very intrusive/track quite a bit about what you do/can actually be malware. On addition, there’s a good chance that money is mostly going to YouTube and not the people creating their works. There’s a reason patreon is a thing for most successful creators. I also hate ads. I don’t hate people getting paid, I hate YouTube for shoving ads down my throat and then turning around not paying people their dues. And in my opinion the worst way possible.

    • Quik@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      YouTube is/ its ads are are extremely privacy intrusive and there isn’t really an alternative to the platform. Next to the comparatively obvious network effects all social media platforms rely on is also because YouTube on its own is not that profitable and probably only really makes Google money via the data collected on the platform. This means only platforms that have a gigantic ad network themselves and are able to monetize said data as well as Google can can actually compete with YouTube— and as you see, there are basically none.

      Also, the whole blocking ad blockers thing is trying to fundamentally reverse the power equilibrium between the website (the server) and the person visiting it (the client); because for the last 40 years or so, the server had the purpose of delivering content to the client which could decide what to do with and how to present said content. This sharing of responsibility between the two comes in many forms, starting with simple things such as screen readers or a reading mode for the browser.

    • Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Partially for the same reason I don’t pay for Xbox live and whatever Nintendo and Sony have; I refuse to pay a service charge for an online platform when I already purchased the hardware (in this case, computer/phone) and pay an ISP for internet access.

      If they want my data and to use my bandwidth they can damn well pay for it.

      • Mcduckdeluxe@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        Do you realize you’re using their bandwidth, too? They have to pay for upload/download just like you do.

    • Deebster@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      I pay for Nebula - $30 a year which is about £22.50. That won’t even cover two months of YouTube Premium (£12 pm), and there’s not even the discounted yearly option in the UK.

      And “if you’re not paying you’re the product” is wrong - YouTube/Google would still be datamining my viewing habits to sell to advertisers.