Edit: Since you guys are downvoting my post, I’ll assume my post does not belong here, because I represent a POPULAR opinion. Remember “ah yes, this is unpopular = upvote” “wait no, everyone likes nutella with butter, popular opinion = downvote”...
I’m not sure if Linus Tech Tips agree with me, but from context, I’ll assume so. Anyway, the free market isn’t a real argument to me. All it tells me is that YouTube and most big creators have a solid business model.
My argument consists of basically two aspects:
Paying money for Youtube content is better value than watching ads for YouTube content. Your time and to an extent mental state is, for 95% of users, worth more than that money.
Not paying money and not watching ads is not sustainable and morally reprehensible. Their service doesn’t finance itself if nobody grants it any income. It they demand a compensation for their goods and services, you are to either compensate them or forego the offer. You cannot just assume that a bunch of other people compensate for the lost income through you. It morally doesn’t work like that. If you do that, you better be okay with financially stablr people stealing in grocery stores too.
Explain how it isn’t. If you’re happy about removing mid to longform video content from the internet, yeah, whatever mate. I don’t think I have an argument to disarm this attack, other than the fact that you stamd with a very small group of people.
If creators decide to use another platform, the other platform will also only exist aslong as people either consume ads or pay money, which, in your argument, wouldn’t happen.
If creators decide to create individual small group platforms, have fun in border gore. People will not find nearly as many interesting videos with just curious browsing. Plus, I don’t see many creators surciving that. Plus, I don’t see many small creators rising in that economy.
You clearly know my stance about consumption of goods and services. I wouldn’t say no to that.
Alphabet is a for profit company. They have every right to be. If they do something, it’s to generate income in some way, at some point. Google Maps is here for a multitude of reasons. User data is what comes to mind. They also take sponsorship money. Be a restaurant, pay money to be on top of the “restaurants in x city” results. GSuite has a business model, the free model also tries to make you stay with Google. Of course this stuff can cost money. Of course it’s also fine if they absolutely milk you for your personal data, as long as you agree, which in the past (and future) has been a problem… not topic of the day.
If they charge money (or ad consumption) for something and I don’t feel like paying, I’m not using. This is the gist of it.
I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.
However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.
I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.
However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.
I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.
However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.
As of now, Lemmy is still quite niche. People wouldn’t generate a high, stable income on Lemmy sized platforms. It’s fine if it’s just for fun, but it’s not really viable as a full business.
Streaming platforms that compete with YT conform to most exactly the same conditions. They need some form of income.
I think there’s SmartTube for smartTv’s. Not sure how parental control stuff works.
Yeah, Nebula is great. But other than being not Google, their platform works in similar ways. You pay, you get content… I mean, how could they even change that anyway?
IDK maybe I’m bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don’t think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.
The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It’s a shit comparison, on purpose. It’s so shit, you should understand my point through that.
I think that’s morally quite okay… well, compared to people’s general mindset in this thread.
But still, think about your creators without YouTube. Where do they go? Nebula? Maybe something like that would work. Likely, if YT is no more. Would that change anything? Not really. There will always be problems, the bigger something is, the worse it gets.
Also, I don’t understand your reference, but that’s okay.
Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don’t follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.
You are still not understanding. EU law doesn’t protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.
It’s like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don’t have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.
In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It’s still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don’t have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.
Google tells me 24 bucks for family. That’s equal to what I do. I actually do pay that for all of em, but technically, it’s just under 5 bucks a person since I share with 4 others.
service provider: “Hello, I’m a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I’ll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers”
customer: “yes please”
service provider: “all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?”
customer: “yes, I love free stuff!”
service provider: “actually, I’d have to charge for that, can’t work for free all the time.”
Basically, not sure how Apple does it though. You have a Google family group. You can add individual accounts to that. The group owner cannot see any activities of other accounts, but he could remove people without their permission.
Removed users only lose active family subscriptions like youtube premium and google one (storage). Their watch histories and whatnot will remain the same. Watch out with Google one. If you have Google one and use more storage than google free, then remove google one, you only get a limited time period to remove data over the limit. Afterwards it gets inaccessible, I don’t think they delete anything, but no insurance on that.
Or 5. It holds 6 people… 4 € per person best case. As for now, they aren’t enforcing same household sharing only, like Netflix do. I can’t tell you about the future.
Also, not to support such behaviour, but if you aren’t made of money, I’m totally okay with you teleporting to Argentina, subscribing to YT Premium at maybe 5 $ a month, and teleporting back to never go there again. That doesn’t require an argentinian CC.
I’m not sure about legal technicalities, but I do know that it currently works. Personally, I don’t risk it if they ever decide to ban associated accounts, because u know, they totally can refuse to service you, if they were to feel like it.
No, I’m not here to defend Alphabet. I’m just saying it’s equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it’s so much easier to do on YouTube doesn’t mean it’s any more justifiable.
I don’t see how the pricing for Premium is unreasonable. I do, however see, how they are too aggressive with ads. That’s why I said paying for premium is a better deal than watching ads. If you don’t agree with either compensation, don’t use their service
YouTube Premium is the only correct way to consume more than one YouTube video a day.
Edit: Since you guys are downvoting my post, I’ll assume my post does not belong here, because I represent a POPULAR opinion. Remember “ah yes, this is unpopular = upvote” “wait no, everyone likes nutella with butter, popular opinion = downvote”...
YouTube (file.coffee)