9 ms·

This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ad

This is the same argument people make about piracy. About potential revenue. The fact of the matter is, if I couldn't watch the video without either watching ads or paying for premium, I wouldn't watch it at all. So, the creator gets no money either way. Same thing when I pirate software or a movie or a game. I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so the amount of money the creator gets is the same, zero.

pb7 3y ago
So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.
- naikrovek 3y ago
  yep. there's a word for a creature that consumes without contributing anything back, making things harder for everyone else: "parasite."
- kingrazor 3y ago
  Alphabet has plenty of money. So long as I'm capable of watching Youtube for free with adblock on, I will continue to do so and feel no guilt.
  - pb7 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - brewdad 3y ago
      I don’t see the problem here. YouTubers can make content or not. Either way they are not entitled to my money.
      - pb7 3y ago
        You're not entitled to their content either but you force yourself to it anyway.
        kingrazor 3y ago
        Sure we are. If you make your content available on a public platform, where it is both possible and legal to watch it for free, then we are entitled to it if we choose to utilize the tools that make it possible, until or unless it becomes illegal or impossible.
        acdha 3y ago
        It’s possible but not legal, just unenforced. We understand that you feel entitled to use things without paying for them but don’t try to dress it up as anything more noble or pretend to be surprised if enforcement escalates.
    - ihateyouall123 3y ago
      [dead]
  - judge2020 3y ago
    And thus YouTube is experimenting with an ad-blocker detection mechanism.
  - CydeWeys 3y ago
    And this is exactly why YouTube should block ad blockers, to force people like you to be honest.
    - kingrazor 3y ago
      I fail to see how I'm being dishonest. It's not like I'm lying about how I use it.
      - CydeWeys 3y ago
        Today you get to learn that words can have multiple definitions!
        mike741 3y ago
        That kinda sounds like lying.
    - ihateyouall123 3y ago
      [dead]
- xigoi 3y ago
  I'd gladly watch the content somewhere else if Google wasn't holding a monopoly over it.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Good news, they aren’t. Tons of content is on multiple services - if you really have a principled objection to Google, you should show that by supporting those services rather than boosting YouTube’s popularity.
    - mike741 3y ago
      "Tons of content on multiple services" =/= "Tons of alternative services" There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Youtube holds a monopoly.

pb7 3y ago

So don't watch it then. Serving video is not cheap and you're increasing costs for everyone else. I don't get to jump the fence at a music festival just because I wouldn't have gone if I had to pay.

naikrovek 3y ago
yep. there's a word for a creature that consumes without contributing anything back, making things harder for everyone else: "parasite."
kingrazor 3y ago
Alphabet has plenty of money. So long as I'm capable of watching Youtube for free with adblock on, I will continue to do so and feel no guilt.
- pb7 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - brewdad 3y ago
    I don’t see the problem here. YouTubers can make content or not. Either way they are not entitled to my money.
    - pb7 3y ago
      You're not entitled to their content either but you force yourself to it anyway.
      - kingrazor 3y ago
        Sure we are. If you make your content available on a public platform, where it is both possible and legal to watch it for free, then we are entitled to it if we choose to utilize the tools that make it possible, until or unless it becomes illegal or impossible.
        acdha 3y ago
        It’s possible but not legal, just unenforced. We understand that you feel entitled to use things without paying for them but don’t try to dress it up as anything more noble or pretend to be surprised if enforcement escalates.
  - ihateyouall123 3y ago
    [dead]
- judge2020 3y ago
  And thus YouTube is experimenting with an ad-blocker detection mechanism.
- CydeWeys 3y ago
  And this is exactly why YouTube should block ad blockers, to force people like you to be honest.
  - kingrazor 3y ago
    I fail to see how I'm being dishonest. It's not like I'm lying about how I use it.
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      Today you get to learn that words can have multiple definitions!
      - mike741 3y ago
        That kinda sounds like lying.
  - ihateyouall123 3y ago
    [dead]
xigoi 3y ago
I'd gladly watch the content somewhere else if Google wasn't holding a monopoly over it.
- acdha 3y ago
  Good news, they aren’t. Tons of content is on multiple services - if you really have a principled objection to Google, you should show that by supporting those services rather than boosting YouTube’s popularity.
  - mike741 3y ago
    "Tons of content on multiple services" =/= "Tons of alternative services" There is only one viable alternative to Youtube that I'm aware of. I use it whenever I can, but that doesn't change the fact that Youtube holds a monopoly.