this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
423 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

34894 readers
752 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (18 children)

Weird to see this downvoted. Youtube is actually a good service that also isn't cheap to run, and it also pays good(?) money to the people producing popular content on the platform so why not pay for using it? Or, you know, live with the ad infestation. Businesses need money to run, and if you don't pay for the content, then either it's the ads or eventually the whole platform needs to be shut down.

It is a separate discussion if Premium pricing is appropriate etc. But it's quite horrifying to see people around the world having been taught into thinking that everything should be "free" even though at the same time everyone is complaining about privacy violation and ads being everywhere all the time.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (6 children)

But it's quite horrifying to see people around the world having been taught into thinking that everything should be "free"

Maybe the businesses shouldn't have created the expectation that everything was "free" then.

YouTube used to be 1 skippable ad at the start of the video. Now it's multiple unskippable ads throughout the video. If the 1 skippable ad wasn't a viable business model then they shouldn't have been pretending it was and then changing things later once people have gotten used to the "free" system.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (3 children)

So you would like a plan that uses the same amount of bandwidth and power as they used back then, with one skippable ad, for free?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yup.

YouTube could easily avoid AdBlockers by simply having ad part of the video itself. Not pulling it from a different server, not hijacking your video player to prevent user controls, just part of the video like any other part of the video and AdBlockers would not be able to detect it. They're not going to do that though, because then users won't be forced to watch an ad they have no interest in.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Do you realize how low quality your stuff would be?

Then people would bitch that they can’t get the high quality version for free

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Do you realize how low quality your stuff would be?

YouTube makes $30 billion a year. They'll be fine.

Then people would bitch that they can’t get the high quality version for free

Reducing the max resolution for people who aren't on YouTube Red will come next once they stop focusing on AdBlockers.

"Service quality will continue to decrease until profits improve!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)