> This is exactly why the internet is in the situation where it is - nobody wants to pay for stuff so they have to monetise tracking and advertising.

This is just as oblivious as the "nobody wants to work" rhetoric that's currently popular. It ignores the fact that a lot of products wouldn't be used, and content wouldn't be consumed, if they weren't free.

No, the reason people wouldn't use Facebook if they had to pay for it isn't because they're cheapskates, it's because Facebook isn't offering a product that's actually worth paying for.

Netlfix et al. show that people are willing to pay for things on the internet if they're actually worth spending money on.

Besides, even when you pay for things on the internet, most companies will still show you ads and track you.

I'm imagining someone in 1990 hearing you say that being able to instantly start watching almost any music video or filmed lecture/talk ever made isn't "a product that's actually worth paying for". I would've given anything to have that.

>I'm imagining someone in 1990 hearing you say that being able to instantly start watching almost any music video or filmed lecture/talk ever made

Imagine going back and mentioning that this would also be a way for the company (Google) to snoop on your conversations and censor dissenting thougth.

A free way to stream any video sounds nice, but it doesn't once you mention the fact that it actually limits the type of content you are able to enjoy.

We should be trying to build a better infrastructure for FOSS video streaming instead of trying to rationalize shitty business models.

No one is censoring thoughts and any conversations that are snooped on are ones you allow to be snooped on by using a free service.

>any conversations that are snooped on are ones you allow to be snooped on by using a free service

I don't think the innocence of the people who don't know the difference between proprietary and free software should be the thing we attack here, specially since the company in question has gone through great efforts before to restrain the spread of the FSF.

That's debatable. Any company that analyses large amounts of data produced by you in the form of posts, likes/dislikes, follows etc are effectively reading your mind.

Someone in the 90s wouldnt have a clue about how much garbage there is to sift through, nor the narcissistic culture that all social media, but especially the type focused on videos, brings.

All the grifters, charlatans, anti-fact, political blowhard, fake, plastic, garbage that litters the whole site from left to right to non-political.

I hope the service fails, frankly.

You just described what the internet enables.

>It ignores the fact that a lot of products wouldn't be used, and content wouldn't be consumed, if they weren't free.

This is why I said we are on Hacker News. People here should probably value their time more than 15$/month if they spend nontrivial amount of time watching YT, yet still refuse to pay, freeloading is a common thing unfortunately.

I’m no more a freeloader watching ads on YouTube than I am a freeloader watching broadcast TV or listening to FM radio in my car.

I think you missed the point the person you are replying to is talking about - if you are watching youtube normally and seeing ads you aren't a freeloader. They are saying those that would use apps like vance or newpipe instead of just paying for premium are the freeloaders

I put a book on a table in a library and every time someone reads it, it costs me a penny.

However, every time someone reads it I am also paid 2 pennies by a dude that wants to tell people about his new book.

People were fine with that, so I also found another guy to pay me 2 pennies to talk about the book he wrote as well.

A negligibly small fraction of those people have started wearing earplugs. How unfair!

So I found a third guy to pay me 2 pennies to talk about the book he wrote as well, and more people started wearing earplugs! What the heck!?!

Ah. You’re right and thanks. I had read that post, but from the use of the trademark assumed that YouTube Vanced was some other YouTube offering that I also didn’t care about, not that it was a 3rd party app that bypassed ads.

Maybe he meant to say freeloader while complaining or blocking the ads.

"On HN ? Unless you are a student you are making enough money to afford premium without thinking much about it and if you are using it enough to notice ads it makes sense to pay for services you use."

That's simply not true.

Not all HN users live in the West. I know YouTube Premium is available in some low-income locations as well, although I concede I don’t know how much they adjust the price.

I spend exponentially more money on content now than I ever did in the past. Both in digital services and physical media.

Not everything is worth my money and Google can kiss my ass.

So stop tracking and use good old-fashioned sleuth work like “he's watching a video about fixing plumbing, let's show him some tools or possibly DIY products for homeowners”.

People _want_ to pay for stuff in exchange for not being tracked. But the business of tracking users and selling their data is much more profitable. Even when small businesses and startups create attractive tools to gain market share, they are (sometimes unknowingly at the moment) following their main agenda which is to get users' data and sell it multiple times to other buyers.

> you are making enough money to afford premium without thinking much about it

This is a broad assumption, what makes you think everybody on this site can afford £12 a month for something they can get completely for free with uBlock Origin and YouTube Vanced?

Currently I pay for

* Breaking Points (10/mo) * 3 substacks (5/mo each) * ProtonMail (5/mo) * StandardNotes (10/mo) * netflix * hulu * prime * boomerang * shudder * disney+ * hbomax * sometimes pandora

This is on top of the fact I buy about 20 records a year and roughly average about 20 dvds/blurays a year and about 10 books a year.

I dont care if Google doesn't get some money.