See the post I was replying to. Khan Academy, MIT free courses, etc. Those are in fact funded by donations. If you check the viewership numbers on individual course videos, it is unlikely they are generating a positive revenue from YouTube payouts.

Those are but two of thousands of channels publishing educational videos. The vast majority of them are dependent on money from YouTube for their income. Would Khan or MIT be able to host and deliver their videos at a price that would make it worthwhile to ditch YouTube, or would that take away donator money from other functions?

It allows all of those channels to join a competing platform that's better suited for education, rather than piggy backing on a platform built for watching nonstop cat videos. Education and YT are not remotely good for each other. Imagine that college is free, and you're studying to become a doctor. Every seven minutes during your O. Chem lecture, Kanye West jumps in front of the professor to tell you how much he likes Pepsi. It's the wrong platform.

> a platform built for watching nonstop cat videos.

And who are you to decide that YouTube should be for cat videos and not high quality educational and documentary videos? On our family TV we have YouTube subscribed to a lot of documentary and educational channels. Recommendations are consistently of the highest quality. On my FreeTube I have other subscriptions to more immersive quality scientific and crafts videos. There is no other platform where videos like these are published.

Who are you to come and say that these videos shouldn't be on YouTube and that these creators shouldn't get paid from me watching their videos? How does our use infringe on yours?

You might as well say that serious debate or business should not be conducted online, because everybody knows the internet is for porn and Minecraft.

There has been a silent revolution lately on YouTube as to the offering of high quality content. Things aren't how they used to be.

>Who are you to come and say that these videos shouldn't be on YouTube and that these creators shouldn't get paid from me watching their videos? How does our use infringe on yours?

I'm me. I'm the world's leading expert on my own opinion. If you watch enough YouTube, you might become an expert on someone's opinion, but likely not on mine.

Your use doesn't infringe anything. Please check that you've responded to a comment relevant to your defensive take on the situation. My comment, for the third time, is in regards to Khan Academy, a 501c venture.

Do you live in a third world country and watch university level education on YouTube in place of attending university?

I assumed not, and therefore I presume, short of any further clarification, that your use has absolutely nothing to do with anything you've responded to. In short, I'm admittedly perplexed by your interest in responding to me whatsoever.

I might have missed something, but going through the parent comments, I didn't see any mention of Khan Academy before you mentioned it in a reply to my post. So to me the topic is about educational videos in the broad sense, not about Khan Academy specifically.

> Does your family use YouTube in place of a university education, but you'd prefer to watch ads than to have donors from wealthier nations pay to remove them for you?

No, I pay for YouTube premium for my family. The price is a bargain and creators get paid better for the things we watch. Yes, I 100% use YouTube in place of a university education, because I don't have any interest in getting degrees in astronomy, middle eastern politics, law, archeology etc. Not to mention the knowledge you can educate yourself on with YouTube that isn't available within academia.

Excellent. Then you're using YouTube exactly as I would advocate would be the requirement. Paying for a subscription is what I'm advocating. I believe the ad platform isn't a benefit to society, particularly university level education materials.