• Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    You all deserve this and worse. No reason to complain about it. This is what everybody wanted.

  • jeffep@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Add to this that companies would prefer showing their ads to paying customers (who have some money to spend), not the free tier plebs

    • DudleyMason@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I’m for it.

      Any form of advertising aside from maybe a press release to announce a new product/service, and also any form of commissioned sales.

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I’ve said this a few times in various places, but I’m really surprised we aren’t allowed to bid for ad space for ourselves to not show an ad the way advertisers do for ads. Obviously a flat monthly rate is simpler, nobody is denying that, but just from a purely “free market” perspective (which shareholders love to say they want while using the government to crush opposition) why can’t I pay slightly more than whatever small amount of money someone is paying to show me an ad to not see the ad?

    Realistically I don’t think we’ll ever see that because it’s a fairly complicated. I don’t have any hard data, but I can’t imagine that the majority of users using something like YouTube Premium are getting a “good deal.” Sure, some folks probably watch all day every day and they get the better end of the deal, but I’d bet for a lot of folks YouTube makes more money off charging the subscription than they would showing the ads. Which is sort of an odd scenario we’ve gotten ourselves into (but amazing if you’re a company that serves ads).

    • Auth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Its a good idea but mentally people hate micro-transactions(transactions that are lower than 10cents) so they get mad every time its suggested. Plus its technically quite challenging to process those kind of transactions efficiently.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You wouldn’t prompt them every time. And it would be no more difficult than serving the ads which are also charging every time they’re shown.

        • Auth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          No I wouldnt prompt them at all because the costs would be so low. Even if you paid 5x what an ad pays you’d spend less than a dollar or two a week. But people hate the idea of paying half a cent when visiting a website or watching a youtube video because they think they either shouldnt have to or that it will eventually become $2 to vist that blog and $4 to watch that video and thats a horrible future.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Not necessarily, like if it was YouTube you’d just deposit money and maybe set a maximum amount of money you’re willing to bid. Honestly most standard banner ads are from Google too, so they could handle that. For streaming services you’d need to set it up for each individually, but that’s no different from setting up billing for each of them. They wouldn’t need to talk to each other.

  • MoffKalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    “Perpetrators offer a service that will not be put into effect, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket.”

    The very definition of racketeering.

  • commander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Friend one day added me to his family plan because they had one space open. I’m still in the habit of always going to youtube in ways I can ad-block but am always pleasantly surprised when I go in the normal youtube app and I have no ads. I’ll pay for the service though

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    Every single youtube channel needs to start seeding torrents of their videos, and posting those links to other platforms (here, mastodon, etc).

    Youtube / google could be defeated collectively if creators were to consistently do this, and interested people had the ability to help seed videos.

    • TheFogan@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      I mean peer tube and similar exist. I think the majority of channels with over a 25k views, I don’t think there’s a consistant number anyone gets, but something like 100 bucks per 25k views or so is pretty common.

      • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Peer tube uses webtorrents, which for many reasons haven’t caught on. It’s still mainly centralized nodes with massive hosting costs. Torrents are the fully decentralized answer.

  • FoundFootFootage78@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    I’d have paid the fee for ad-free YouTube if it didn’t also come with an (expensive) subscription to YouTube music.

    Nowadays though I don’t want to give Google money for anything, even incidentally. I just use Ublock Origin.