What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium.
And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model.
What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up.
http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...
Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate?
There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…