YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video

Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by ForHackernews on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:16PM (#21507209)

HBO, Hulu, and yes, even Netflix all have content with much, much higher production values than Youtube. Are you really going to pay $7.99/month for one-person-talking-into-a-camera style content? I certainly wouldn't.

If there's a creator I really like, I'd rather support them directly on Patreon, anyway. Why should I pay Youtube and give Google a hefty cut of that revenue?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by Vysero on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:45PM (#21507532)

For one person? You only watch one channel on YouTube? I watch hundreds of channels on YouTube and if it meant making the lives of content creators easier then yes I would pay/month for that. Of course, it would have to mean making the lives of content creators easier. Currently you can pay so you don't have advertisements but apparently that's not making the lives of content creators easier.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by ForHackernews on Monday November 11, 2019 @04:25PM (#21509080)

I don't watch any channels on YT, honestly. I see clips when people link them to me or I search for some specific thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video by alanfalcon on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:22PM (#21507270)

I sometimes pay YouTube $11.99 a month for premium. It replaces the need for an alternative music streaming service, for one thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]