this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
1349 points (96.0% liked)

Memes

45719 readers
1057 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (52 children)

ITT: "it costs more than 5 bucks a month!" yeah, if you don't share with friends with family, it does. Also, music service included, deduct your spotify payment.

"You can just block ads" You can just miss the whole point.

"I rather support creators directly" I'm happy you do that. YouTube hosting is not free for Google/Alphabet, pay them too, or you'll have to teach each and every creator how to webhost + help em search a "real job" because selfhosted won't pay enough. Also, good fun browsing videos then.


IDK man, paying for YT Premium really isn't that bad. Assuming you already consume YouTube content, that is. And I'm pretty sure that's like 98% of first world population between 4 and 70.

Blocking ads on YouTube is no sustainable solution. Hosting Billions of Gigabytes of on-demand content is SUPER expensive. Like, it actually costs money. Other, wayyy smaller indie creator on-demand video platforms charge 5 bucks a month, but i'ts okay if they do it, because they aren't big bad Alphabet.

If that's your view, you don't have a problem with pricing, you have a problem with morals. And if you still do voluntarily consume YouTube content in private, with or without ads in any which way, you inarguably have a huge problem with your own morals.

YouTube premium is a good deal. It's priced very well compared with competition, it actually does pay indie creators and it let's you access to features that many users really do use.

BUTBUT THEY ARTIFICIALLY LIMIT FEATURES FOR NO REASON WITHOUT PREMIUM. I mean, it's subscription software and streaming, what else would they do? Every for profit subscription software provider and their mother does this. I develop hospital software and we literally do exactly this. If hospital A has feature x and hospital B also wants that, we don't just hand that out for free even when we just have to add it to their system in like 10 minutes... what did you expect? They already use our software (like you use YouTube), we don't have a huge incentive to just randomly add features if nobody paid for it. If we do, be happy about it, send me a gift card, if we or they don't, that's just business.

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago (9 children)

It's wild to me that this is so often called "just business" when, described this way, it's textbook racketeering.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Could you explain to me how "if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it" could be perceived as racketeering, let alone "textbook?"

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's "if someone wants to use my work, they should pay me for it" and there's "intentionally sabotage the work/service provided in order to extract more profits."

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"The work or service provided for free?" If so what's the difference? If you're getting something for free you have no right to complain

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago

But it's not free, just because you aren't paying in money doesn't mean you aren't paying for it in other ways.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (48 replies)