1309
Google raising price of YouTube Premium to $13.99 per month
(9to5google.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1309 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59517 readers
2797 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ok? And? They aren't a charity and don't owe you free video hosting services.
EDIT: I find it hilarious that point out the fact that you aren't entitled to free hosting services is getting down voted. Lmao how old are the people here?
Dude they sell our data to advertisers and big data for profit. The least they can do is provide some services for us for the amount of analytics they collect from us on a daily basis.
As someone who's actually worked in this industry, your data isn't enough to pay for video hosting services to the scale youtube provides. Youtube makes up a significant chunk of all network traffic in the world. It costs money.
You're a content creator, aren't you? 🤣
No i am not. But I am happy to support actual content creators and the platform that they host on and gets them the most views because I spend more time on YT than I do on any other streaming platform.
I mean that is objectively not true.
They pay content creators more than any other platform to my understanding. I think the exception is kik (kick?) The streaming platform.
Too bad you constantly have to be worried about dumb policy changes that can affect your older videos which can mean cutting off those revenue sources
Also I’ve never seen another platform that demonetizes content as much as YouTube does.
Both very fair points. But, there is no other platform that even compares for real.
Dude, they ARE the advertiser. That's Google's main business. They have no incentive to export ANY of your account data to 3rd parties. Business tell them what groups of people to advertise to, and their systems handle the rest. They're open about how it all works.
They were already being paid and profitable, both from direct cash and ad revenue, but that doesn't ever seem to be enough.
You are free to disagree with their pricing and cancel a subscription if you have one. That's how the free market works.
"Free market works" is by itself a very questionable statement.
But there sure are some more options beyond that. Although some people think we shouldn't be free to pick them.
You are free to pick w.e you want. That doesn't make someone actually paying for a decent platform a corporate shill.
Our definitions of "decent" are definitely different. But this is not just about what you choose to do, it's about all the fingerwagging people do at people who don't believe this is worth paying (even more) for.
The only finger wagging going on is people calling people corporate shills for actually paying for a service.
Then you need to look better because you are down a thread pointing out how people are getting downvoted and ragged on for suggesting ad blocking options.
Actually nevermind. Just look at the mirror. You really are talking of Google like it's a struggling charity.
No I am a thread calling people corporate shills for disagreeing with people saying we should all be pirating.
It doesn't matter how rich google is, it doesn't owe you video hosting services. It's not a charity. You can disagree with their pricing and you can find another platform if you like. But services cost money and just because a company has money through other sources doesn't mean they need to subsidize all their products.
Of course it does. Not only Google has plenty of money to keep it running, don't even try to make a moral argument out of one of these companies stripmining everyone's data
If you care so much about the costs of hosting, I hope you donate to the Lemmy.
No it absolutely does not. It is a business, not a charity. They don't owe anyone anything for free. That's how the world works. Your personal data is a part of the fee you pay for the service. And again no one is forcing anyone to use that service. There are plenty of alternatives like Nebula that the content creators themselves have set up. You are free to just not use it if you don't like it.
I am new to Lemmy but I absolutely will just as I donate to wikipedia. If it is giving me value, then I am happy to support it financially up to the point where I think the finances are equal to the value I am receiving in return.
How the world works is that people get what they can get away with, and we who are on the bottom ought to keep that in mind instead of idealizing a model of fairness that only helps those who are already powerful get away with more.
Instead, if you do care about fairness, think more about those who need it.
Nebula is a fair suggestion though, because at least that directly helps the creators without constraining them to whatever advertisers want.
It works that way because ultimately that's what drives competition and innovation. I am open to a more fair alternative however I am aware of none that has actually been successful.
I said things have a cost and I think based on the market alternatives, what YT is charging is still fair. You may disagree and that is your right to. I did not imply however that the world itself is fair or even needs to be fair. It's not and never has been and whether is should be is a much bigger philosophical debate outside of just YT pricing.
We are in Lemmy through rising enshittification of the internet and you still believe that Big Tech sucking up all data and charging more for worse services everyday is what drives innovation? That everyone gotta bend over and give up what they say they are owed? C'mon...
Do you even use the internet without ad blockers?
If you think that's the right and proper way to go about it, feel free. I'll still handle things my way.
Big tech getting greedy is how we got reddit in the first place. And reddit getting too greedy is what is leading to lemmy. So ya it is driving innovation. People either think it's worth it or driven to develop an better or suitable alternative.
So what you are saying is that supporting alternatives is more beneficial to innovation than paying declining Big Tech incumbents more.
I am saying you pay for something as long as you think it's worth it and as long as you think it's working and improving and then support an alternative when you don't. Things getting too expensive for their value has been a cornerstone to driving new innovation throughout history.
That's for consumers to decide. If people still pay for it and think it's worth their money, then they aren't really gouging, they were just under priced. If people don't and start cancelling their subscriptions, they have over priced it and now need to bring the price back down. For me personally, Netflix is the one teetering on that point, YT isn't there yet.
And I don't owe them a subscription if I don't agree with the value they've placed on it. Free market, baby. 👍
Sure, absolutely, you don't. No one is claiming otherwise.
You seem oddly offended at the idea people wouldn't lol. I don't know why you're taking this so personally.
No I just think it's stupid to call people who would pay for a service a corporate shill. I have no issue with someone who doesn't think a subscription is worth it. Maybe read the whole thread first next time.
No but I'm not going to pay Google for anything. It's obscene to give them even more money.
Whether you think that service is worth it or not is up to you.
But don't act like you have some moral high ground here and that people who are actually paying for a service that you are stealing from and a service that actually shares revenue with it's content creators and encourages independent creators are just corporate shills.
Some of us are adults and realize things cost money and not entitled children that expect everything for free.
And some of us are adults that don't have your innate need to wield your moral high ground like a smug pedantic asshole.
I am not the one calling anyone who isn't pirating a corporate shill.
And yet that's obivously not what this thread's context was before you started self-jerking to moral superiority.
Have some self awareness.
This isn't a Wendys Drive Thru.
Here, since you have difficulty following, let me copy where the original thread started.
I am not the one who started the moral superiority, I just disagreed at being called a "corporate shill" before a bunch of insecure assholes started losing their shit.
Maybe try having self awareness yourself before suggesting it to someone else.
Self inserting as a main character to claim you've been attacked so you can shill your moral superiority is the cherry on top of your bullshit sundae.