Haha yea, shame on them for trying to transition to a business model that's actually a great value for the customer compared to other music and video playforms, no longer relies on datamining customers to maximize ad-effectiveness, and brings in more income for creators than ads ever did...

It's a totally stupid idea, YT should just eat the costs and be subsidized by Google search revenue forever.

Why can't we just keep taking from the platform while its expenses are covered by some shrinking group of shmucks who don't know about ad-blockers yet, drowning in commercials?

I don't understand this outlook. Like, sure, you can use adblock. One person stealing a mars bar isn't gonna hurt Walmart... But if literally everyone just took their shopping cart home, never once paying, Walmart would just... Cease to exist.

What makes people think that math is any different for online services?

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

no longer relies on data mining customers to maximize ad effectiveness

You're an idiot if you believe they won't do that anyway.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You don't say. Everyone does it.

But it's a shit source of income that nets mere cents per user, and should be made illegal as soon as political will allows.

Hence, a good service should not rely on collecting user data as a sole revenue source.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If google goes down someone else will fill the void. And I don’t give a shit about their numbers, if it’s not financially feasible to host everything without running a loss for years to extinguish competition and then to hike up the price, they should have thought of that before.

Aside from that, any Corp that goes down is a victory in my book.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 10 points 10 months ago

Then I hope YT gets legally enshrined and archived in some way.

Like it or not, it is the sole complete repository of a lot of video and audio records for recent human history.

It's become something that should not be under corporate control. Something which should be treated with care and reverence.

Yet it is, and isn't.

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean YouTube's model is correct. The basic understanding we all need to have is pay people for their bread. Don't ever get more from someone that you aren't willing to pay back in some kind. 20% tip for waiting staff might suck for a person, but do not "NOT TIP". We tip till workers get fair wages or we don't go eat out, but don't go eat out and not tip. Same here. Don't head over to your creators on YouTube and deny them their fair share be it premium or ads.

YouTube takes a 45% cut on subscriptions. That's not fair share and they don't provide a means for creators to strike a balance. You can be angry at that. But don't ever be angry at that and not give some fair share to the creators. Additionally, with the whole Channel Membership, makes the whole YouTube Premium questionable. Why am I paying $14/mo for Premium and then $5/mo/channel I'm a member for? Why can YouTube not see that I've spent x% time here at so-and-so's channel and take x% of that Premium and send it to that creator (minus some off the top for infrastructure for themselves)?

This is ultimately what I dislike about YouTube Premium and what I like most about Patreon. In fact, the majority of what I once watched on YouTube has largely shifted there to Patreon. The things is, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask folks to be FAIR about what YouTube is giving, so you're right. But YouTube is a crap distribution platform that routinely robs creators of power over their media, exposure, and revenue and does so with impunity.

People shouldn't rob from YouTube to make a point. People should just leave to make a point. That's the fair thing to do. And if you do enjoy content from your favorite creators, always make sure you tell them so by putting money in their pocket. If we want fair wages for one, we need to remember we need to want fair wages for everyone. And more importantly, the folks running the show need to be more affable to listening to the folks tending to the fields. Be it employers need to listen to their waiters and pay them based on that or YouTube needs to listen to it's creators and address the various issues they bring up.

We're in an era where there's a whole lot of "I know better" in the workplace and really I think we just need more partnership between all involved. I think if we had more of that, we'd have a lot more of the other issues solved by proxy. That's ultimately what I have issues with YouTube, but just because I have issues doesn't mean I go stealing things from them. You are absolutely correct in that folks should play fair if they're heading to YouTube. We're all in this together folks, don't rob from each other even if you don't like the means by which they get the money.

[–] SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net 1 points 10 months ago

Premium already does what you're saying, channel membership is a separate thing

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Google doesn't deserve your money.
You don't pay a bully so that they bully you a little bit less

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago

That's a very bad analogy.

That logic would lead to defect-defect scenarios in all but the rarest of cases.

By all means, defect when warranted, but if a bad company changing course doesn't net rewards, why would corps ever do anything other than the worst possible, taking as many users down with them as they can snare?