My sole argument is that a lot of people in tech are better off just paying for Premium because their time is worth more than using a cheat or watching/dealing with ads.
And for those who think it's not worth it, that's totally fine. I'm not arguing that you should pay or even use YouTube.
My only point is that devs should think carefully about the value of their time.
I don't think even Google consider it as a real option internally, it's just a way to get more money out of higher income users.
The pricing of the premium subscription is absolutely insane, they get peanuts from each users from the ads compared to that.
I still think if you are a high value target for advertisers, it’s a probably a worse deal for YouTube if you’re on premium.
It’s also a little bit moot because YouTube creators often in-line their own ads so they can’t be skipped…
Copyright effectively gives YT an arguably illegitimate monopoly status on a lot of content which hasn't been uploaded elsewhere. Compared to, say, "modern" Usenet where files are distributed and users choose their provider.
Ads are trash and I'm somewhat willing to pay, but not on the Google terms that takes away my privacy and right to run FOSS.
YouTube server's not running on your computer.
The client is, my browser is, and the ads that I suppose they want me to watch would be displayed through my computer.
But if that's the choice you prefer to make, then the objectively more ethical thing to do is to not watch the video content either.
For some reason people have misconstrued ones responsibilities towards ones neighbors with ones responsibilities towards multi-billion dollar companies.
copying isn't theft, convincing people it is theft is tantamount to the scam that caused people to believe diamond rings were a part of marriage proposals.
It's no more unethical to refuse to play specific content on a device you own than it is to refuse to purchase a diamond ring when proposing marriage.
That's a strained analogy at best. Let's just go back a few decades: is it unethical to mute your TV and go to the bathroom in 1980 when a commercial comes on? Of course not. So is it unethical to not watch an ad on YouTube? Of course not. Using an ad-blocker to make the experience more seamless therefore isn't unethical either.
If YouTube wants us to watch ads without being able to skip them, then they need to shut down their web service, and make special closed-source player apps that allow them to fully control the viewing experience. Good luck with that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engagement_ring
> In the early 21st century, the jewellery industry started marketing engagement rings for men under the name "mangagement rings".
...
> The idea that a man should spend a significant fraction of his annual income for an engagement ring originated from De Beers marketing materials in the mid-20th century in an effort to increase the sale of diamonds. In the 1930s, they suggested that a man should spend the equivalent of one month's income in the engagement ring.[40] In the 1980s, they suggested that he should spend two months' income on it
---
it's a marketing swindle, not an analogy.
Blocking ads has nothing to do with people thinking you're cheap, and certainly nothing to do with commitment to a relationship, or your prospective spouse's opinion of you. It's only about whether you're somehow morally obligated to pay attention to advertising that comes along with something free. There's nothing at all free about diamond engagement rings.
Blocking ads is about as unethical as shielding your eyes from the sun.
In reality, however, this is just a dumb justification for unethical behavior, because people with adblockers will just look for ways to circumvent their anti-adblock measures, in order to keep consuming content for free.
And this behavior is akin to piracy. Software piracy which ensured monopolies thrived.
Just as in the 90s, when software piracy helped companies like Microsoft or Adobe to own the market, YouTube is now a monopoly thanks to people like you. Because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate by being ads-free.
And now that monopoly, which adblockers helped create, is used as further justification for the existence of adblockers. Funny how that works out.
I wouldn't care, except the writing is on the wall for where this is going. In truth, adblocking still works simply because publishers like Google still allow it to work, by not investing in anti-adblock tech or lobbying for legislation (e.g., DRM). It's either that or paywalls everywhere. And this will hurt the open web, much like how software piracy hurt general purpose computing.
Enjoy the free experience while it lasts.
but shush, we don't talk about the pirated ... err blood diamonds involved, ethics only becomes important when it's the public doing something they don't like.
The person replying to you probably wouldn't work for free or "exposure," would they?
It’s easy to host video now so I’d also note that not treating YouTube as a fundamental human right would also open up room for competition. If they’re so bad you can’t stomach paying for what you like, why are you spending your time helping them maintain their high market share?
1) no money + they get data
2) money + they get no data
3) no money + no data (me ;)
Choose one. Non-negotiable. Seriously. Gatekeep or pretend like you have any jurisdiction or power all you like while I sidle by on option 3)
Exactly!
Now, how do you think these millions of content creators get paid for their content? And why do you think they willingly upload the content to <insert here your streaming platform of choice -- YouTube, Twitch, Nebula, etc>?
Putting YouTube aside -- in the end of the day there's three options for content monetization:
1) we all pay for content
2) somebody else pays for it (like advertisers), in exchange for something they need (e.g. visibility, sell you products)
3) you freeload folks in #1 and #2 for as long as you get away with, until you become the majority, and things start crumbling apart.
People will continue to make and share videos regardless of whether they get paid for it. There are countless channels that have less than 1k subscribers (Google's threshold to pay you anything at all), that upload semi-regularly and often have interesting content. (I subscribe to those via RSS, just to make sure I don't miss an upload.) People made content long before YouTube was able to pay anyone anything at all.
People make their videos even though YouTube basically guarantees them nothing in terms of promoting/driving traffic (btw even if you have a million subscribers, you have to continue to game the algorithm, please remember to upvote this comment!). Even after that, your payout is a cut of Google's ad/premium income, not "pay per view".
Finally, people make sponsored content, set up tip jars, sell merch, etc because ads alone can't fully support a high-effort channel.
More importantly, YouTube has been generating losses for a heck of a long time (including after being acquired), which again - considering that it is a de facto public service, makes me think that it should've been publicly funded. (By whom? Excellent question. Maybe tax some of those billionaires who poured VC money to kickstart it.)
If YouTube wants to put a paywall up then fine, but until then I’m going to keep using my user agent which includes an ad blocker. I didn’t turn the adblocker on specifically for YouTube and I’m not going to turn it off for YouTube.
Correct! It happened by offering a completely free service with no advertising, in order to become the dominant player and eliminate all the competition, some of which was trying to use more sustainable business models. The idea that YouTube should be free also didn’t happen magically, it was (and still is) intentionally fostered.
YouTube is free. If you don’t mind ads.
Lots of competitors have tried to use both paid accounts and ad-funding. What competitor I might prefer is irrelevant here, but there are plenty of them, just Google YouTube competitors. Vimeo is a good example of a site with high quality content and a more sustainable business model that tried for a while and was unable to broach the same market. YouTube so far surpassed everyone by offering videos without ads until more recently, in order to gain market share. The mindset you’re currently arguing against was established and curated and encouraged by YouTube, and they’re still hoping you hang on to it while they keep cranking up the amount of advertising and trying to normalize the bogus idea that avoiding ads is somehow bad. They do not have to offer an ad-funded business model, so if they don’t like the cat-and-mouse adblocker game, they can switch to paid accounts only.
It’s perfectly fine to block ads, because it’s perfectly fine to ignore ads we didn’t ask for. You can fast-forward or turn the volume down manually, just like you can write software to automate it. As a society, we wouldn’t have it any other way. We’ve had this same debate over VHS and DVD warnings & trailers, over TV and cable ads, over radio ads, and over general internet website ads. It will never change because advertisers are not allowed to force us to watch ads, as much as they’d like to.
In any case, if they make the choice to live off advertising, it’s their problem. They are not owed a business model.
YouTube has the right to offer only paying accounts, and stop serving free videos. They are choosing not to exercise that option. In fact, they chose to monopolize video streaming by initially offering free videos with no ads. Demanding ad viewing time is a recent change to their business model.
Consumers also have the right to not watch YouTube, but when YouTube chooses to serve “free” ads that are annoying and waste time, as long as there are easy technical options for removing them, the temptation is pretty high. There is no law that you must watch ads, not on YouTube, not on TV, not for billboards, not on the internet. And basically nobody wants to waste time watching ads. This is why it’s wrong to call it “scamming”.
BTW I’m perfectly fine with the idea of an ad-funded business model for free services. I’m only objecting to your framing that avoiding ads when they can puts consumers in the wrong. YouTube’s funding is YouTube’s business, and they are free to fight against ad-blockers, but please don’t be a shill or vilify people for doing the obvious and legal thing. YouTube wants you to spout this crap because Google and advertisers would love it if there was public support for making ad-watching legally mandatory, and that would be a nightmare dystopian future we don’t want.
Do you want to work for free?
If I "[worked] for free", I'd be giving away hours of my time.
When Google "[gives me] content for free", they're losing fractions of fractions of a cent in bandwidth.
This is a shitty equivalence.
What about the first language you acquired? I hope you pay a per use perpetual fee for every sentence popping in your mind in its expression space, and that your license to use it also includes an obligation of permanent report of every single bit of intimacy that you might experiment.
I think they should pay their fair share and not expect us to give them stuff for free
That's the middle-class concern of children who have never known what it's like to go hungry.
Of all the things to push for being publicly funded, this aint it. How about daily medical and dental? How about insurance for vehicles so the poor don't get unduly punished?
I could go on and on, your perspective is just out of touch.
Great. Good for them. What about the rest of the world, some (many) of whom can't afford a(nother) monthly subscription fee?
Are they now to be excluded from participating in popular culture, if they do not wish to be subjected to obnoxious advertising?
Youtube basically reached a de-facto status of a public library, considering it contains archival TV shows, sports matches, original music, documentaries, lessons, instructions, clips of contemporary life, and so on. While median quality is much lower, it easily rivals Wikipedia in breadth and depth.
It my opinion, it should be publicly funded, without discriminating access based on willingness (ability!) to pay or to be subjected to ads.