5 ms·

Serious question: Why don't you pay for YouTube premium? Isn't it hypocritical to want YouTube to offer you its content for free? If the content is valuable to

by tsycho 1y ago

Serious question: Why don't you pay for YouTube premium? Isn't it hypocritical to want YouTube to offer you its content for free? If the content is valuable to you, you should be willing to pay for it. If not, just stop watching YouTube.

hanspeter 1y ago
It's not only hypocritical, it's nonsensical in this discussion. It's obvious that if advertising was made illegal, we would need to pay for all those services that we want to use. YouTube premium is the best example of how that would actually work.
mbs159 1y ago
> If the content is valuable to you, you should be willing to pay for it But I do, by supporting those creators through Patreon. Paying for YouTube Premium sounds like a bad deal since I'm not directly supporting the creators for which I go to YouTube in the first place.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- carterpaul 1y ago
  YouTube Premium dishes out your revenue to creators based on how much you watch. See Linus Tech Tips’ video on their income streams (skip to 4:40): https://youtu.be/GeCP-0nuziE?si=xH5gTvzglaPlQyJ4 https://youtu.be/GeCP-0nuziE?si=xH5gTvzglaPlQyJ4 Sure, YouTube probably takes more off the top than Patreon. But YouTube also splits it up based on who you’re watching. I probably watch 30+ YouTube channels per week, some of which I find on the explore page and don’t even know the name of. I would never subscribe to 30+ Patreons. I think YouTube Premium is a good compromise.
- ninkendo 1y ago
  The creators you’re paying on Patreon aren’t hosting their own videos though, YouTube is. Hosting videos isn’t cheap, who should cover that cost? I get that YouTube doesn’t give enough of a percentage of profits to the creator, but the alternative should be a different video hosting platform that does give more profits to creators. Not patreon, which offers nothing in return. (It’s a glorified payment processor and doesn’t actually do any video hosting.) That there are vanishingly few alternatives to YouTube in terms of actually hosting videos (I know of Vimeo and, I guess nebula? Only because it gets continually pushed on me by creators) maybe tells you that the act of hosting videos at scale is kinda hard to do profitably. Or else there’d be tons of alternative options.
  - mbs159 1y ago
    I don't really care where the videos are hosted, though. I watch on YouTube because that's where my beloved creators choose host their vids. If they started to host their videos on Vimeo or even archive.org, I would watch them there since I only care about the content. > Hosting videos isn’t cheap, who should cover that cost? The ad revenue is in the billions and is steadily increasing each year. I would bet that the costs are more than covered.
    - ninkendo 1y ago
      > The ad revenue is in the billions and is steadily increasing each year. I would bet that the costs are more than covered. You're changing the context of the discussion here. snailmailman had said: > Youtube so badly wants me to pay for premium. But the ads they show me are almost entirely scams and questionably legal content [...] On desktop uBlock still works in Firefox at least. But I’ve basically given up YouTube on iOS. Saying they're unwilling to tolerate ads in YouTube. When asked why not just pay for YouTube premium, you came and said why you don't pay for YouTube premium. When pressed, you say "because YouTube's ad model will make them the money they need to host the videos." Since you haven't said whether you block ads, there's two ways of interpreting this: 1. You don't block ads, you're ok watching YouTube ads, and you pay the creators directly through patreon. Great! But that makes your reply -- to why snailmailman doesn't pay for YT premium -- a little off-topic, because we were discussing ad-blocking. 2. OR, you're not ok watching YouTube ads, you block them, and then pay creators on patreon directly, meaning you don't care about covering the costs of hosting videos, because you don't believe YouTube should be showing you ads, and you don't want to pay them for the service. In which case we're back to "who should cover the costs." Maybe your answer is "other suckers, but not me", which is quite hypocritical.
      - mbs159 1y ago
        I do block ads on YouTube, but I also block ads everywhere else without exception. I think that ads suck and that everybody should refuse to consume them. Not everybody is bothered by them, though, and they are not "suckers" for thinking so. If YouTube were to offer me a service that I think is worth paying for, then I would. I think that YouTube Premium is not a product worth paying for based on what they're offering, and also I noticed that I watch YouTube videos less and less over the years. Nebula and Curiosity Stream convinced me to pay for their services, so perhaps YouTube just has to step up?
evantbyrne 1y ago
Being cheap and also having standards of what you'll watch is not hypocritical.
snailmailman 1y ago
Maybe its hypocritical. But I have no issues with blocking ads on youtube on my PC, since 95%+ of the ads I see on youtube mobile are blatantly breaking Youtube's own TOS, if not breaking actual laws. I shouldn't be seeing these advertisements anyway if Youtube actually enforced their own policies. But I assume they'd rather advertise scams than miss out on a single empty ad spot. I'm surprised Youtube hasn't faced any legal consequences for all the scams they allow to advertise on their platform. As far as I could tell, the ad I saw for a gun that was "easy to sneak past security" and "no license required" was up for well over a month, and I'm not convinced Youtube actually took it down. I saved that one, and as far as I can tell, the video ad url is still up, but now requires a sign in to view the video.

by tsycho 1y ago

hanspeter 1y ago

It's not only hypocritical, it's nonsensical in this discussion. It's obvious that if advertising was made illegal, we would need to pay for all those services that we want to use. YouTube premium is the best example of how that would actually work.

mbs159 1y ago

> If the content is valuable to you, you should be willing to pay for it But I do, by supporting those creators through Patreon. Paying for YouTube Premium sounds like a bad deal since I'm not directly supporting the creators for which I go to YouTube in the first place.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
carterpaul 1y ago
YouTube Premium dishes out your revenue to creators based on how much you watch. See Linus Tech Tips’ video on their income streams (skip to 4:40): https://youtu.be/GeCP-0nuziE?si=xH5gTvzglaPlQyJ4 https://youtu.be/GeCP-0nuziE?si=xH5gTvzglaPlQyJ4 Sure, YouTube probably takes more off the top than Patreon. But YouTube also splits it up based on who you’re watching. I probably watch 30+ YouTube channels per week, some of which I find on the explore page and don’t even know the name of. I would never subscribe to 30+ Patreons. I think YouTube Premium is a good compromise.
ninkendo 1y ago
The creators you’re paying on Patreon aren’t hosting their own videos though, YouTube is. Hosting videos isn’t cheap, who should cover that cost? I get that YouTube doesn’t give enough of a percentage of profits to the creator, but the alternative should be a different video hosting platform that does give more profits to creators. Not patreon, which offers nothing in return. (It’s a glorified payment processor and doesn’t actually do any video hosting.) That there are vanishingly few alternatives to YouTube in terms of actually hosting videos (I know of Vimeo and, I guess nebula? Only because it gets continually pushed on me by creators) maybe tells you that the act of hosting videos at scale is kinda hard to do profitably. Or else there’d be tons of alternative options.
- mbs159 1y ago
  I don't really care where the videos are hosted, though. I watch on YouTube because that's where my beloved creators choose host their vids. If they started to host their videos on Vimeo or even archive.org, I would watch them there since I only care about the content. > Hosting videos isn’t cheap, who should cover that cost? The ad revenue is in the billions and is steadily increasing each year. I would bet that the costs are more than covered.
  - ninkendo 1y ago
    > The ad revenue is in the billions and is steadily increasing each year. I would bet that the costs are more than covered. You're changing the context of the discussion here. snailmailman had said: > Youtube so badly wants me to pay for premium. But the ads they show me are almost entirely scams and questionably legal content [...] On desktop uBlock still works in Firefox at least. But I’ve basically given up YouTube on iOS. Saying they're unwilling to tolerate ads in YouTube. When asked why not just pay for YouTube premium, you came and said why you don't pay for YouTube premium. When pressed, you say "because YouTube's ad model will make them the money they need to host the videos." Since you haven't said whether you block ads, there's two ways of interpreting this: 1. You don't block ads, you're ok watching YouTube ads, and you pay the creators directly through patreon. Great! But that makes your reply -- to why snailmailman doesn't pay for YT premium -- a little off-topic, because we were discussing ad-blocking. 2. OR, you're not ok watching YouTube ads, you block them, and then pay creators on patreon directly, meaning you don't care about covering the costs of hosting videos, because you don't believe YouTube should be showing you ads, and you don't want to pay them for the service. In which case we're back to "who should cover the costs." Maybe your answer is "other suckers, but not me", which is quite hypocritical.
    - mbs159 1y ago
      I do block ads on YouTube, but I also block ads everywhere else without exception. I think that ads suck and that everybody should refuse to consume them. Not everybody is bothered by them, though, and they are not "suckers" for thinking so. If YouTube were to offer me a service that I think is worth paying for, then I would. I think that YouTube Premium is not a product worth paying for based on what they're offering, and also I noticed that I watch YouTube videos less and less over the years. Nebula and Curiosity Stream convinced me to pay for their services, so perhaps YouTube just has to step up?

evantbyrne 1y ago

Being cheap and also having standards of what you'll watch is not hypocritical.

snailmailman 1y ago

Maybe its hypocritical. But I have no issues with blocking ads on youtube on my PC, since 95%+ of the ads I see on youtube mobile are blatantly breaking Youtube's own TOS, if not breaking actual laws. I shouldn't be seeing these advertisements anyway if Youtube actually enforced their own policies. But I assume they'd rather advertise scams than miss out on a single empty ad spot. I'm surprised Youtube hasn't faced any legal consequences for all the scams they allow to advertise on their platform. As far as I could tell, the ad I saw for a gun that was "easy to sneak past security" and "no license required" was up for well over a month, and I'm not convinced Youtube actually took it down. I saved that one, and as far as I can tell, the video ad url is still up, but now requires a sign in to view the video.