712
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheAlbatross 261 points 11 months ago

Sorry Google.

I'm gonna use YouTube ad free or I won't use it.

And I ain't gonna pay for it.

[-] iAmTheTot@kbin.social 107 points 11 months ago

Pretty sure that they are fine with that, they are actively trying to get rid of you.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 71 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ding ding ding. It’s an unpopular opinion, but it’s the harsh truth. This is akin to a super high maintenance Karen going “I’m never going to shop here again” even though she immediately returns everything she purchases. The company isn’t making any profit off of her, (in fact they’re losing money because she demands employees’ attention whenever she’s shopping) so a sensible manager’s response should be “okay, we’re glad to see you go. Please don’t come back.”

YouTube doesn’t want the users who block ads and refuse to pay. Those users are a net drain on the system. Lemmy likes to yell about FOSS, and there is a lot to love about that… But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesn’t really mean “Free”. It means “Free to the end user”. Someone had to devote time and resources to building and hosting that “free” thing. The fact that they’re willing to share their effort is great! But it can’t be the expectation.

As someone who does a lot of freelance work, I’ll say the same thing that I say to clients when they ask me to work for free because of the exposure: Exposure is what people die of when they can’t pay their rent. I’m not saying YouTube is going to go bankrupt because of these users, but the users can’t reasonably expect YouTube to continue to pay for/accommodate them.

[-] dizzy@lemmy.ml 81 points 11 months ago

Free in FOSS means free as in freedom not free as in beer.

[-] dannym@lemmy.escapebigtech.info 50 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

But ultimately, the F in FOSS doesn’t really mean “Free”. It means “Free to the end user”.

The F in FOSS does NOT mean gratis. I absolutely hate that we decided to call it Free. There have been attempts at saying another word like libre (aka FLOSS) but those haven't worked out.

I don't agree with the FSF on a lot, but their definition of free software is as follows:

“Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis.

You may have paid money to get copies of a free program, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.


In other words software can be paid and still be FOSS. In fact, I want to see MORE paid software that's FOSS.

Gratis software only works in very rare cases, when an entity other than the user of the software pays for it, but that is NOT the case with FOSS.

I want more FOSS software that is monetized. Charging for FOSS software is not only permissible but desirable. This model ensures that developers are compensated for their skilled labor, fostering an environment where innovation is rewarded. It's about creating a sustainable ecosystem where the values of open-source are upheld without sacrificing the financial viability of the developers.

When software is open-source and monetized, it strikes a critical balance. Users gain the freedoms associated with FOSS – the liberty to run, modify, and share – while developers receive the financial recognition for their contributions.

Paid FOSS software also opens doors to more professional and polished products. When developers are remunerated, there's a greater incentive to maintain, improve, and support software. This, in turn, encourages wider adoption, as users are more likely to rely on software that is regularly updated and supported.

Moreover, a paid FOSS model disrupts the surveillance capitalism model. It negates the need for monetizing user data, as the revenue comes directly from the users in exchange for the software. This aligns perfectly with the principles of respecting user privacy and data ownership.

I WANT to pay for FOSS software that respects my rights and freedoms. The payment becomes an investment in a world where software is not just a tool, but a statement of principles. It's a declaration that I support an ecosystem where the power and control lie with the users, not in the hands of a few large corporations.

By paying for FOSS, we're contributing to a marketplace that values ethical practices over profit maximization. We're fostering a space where software developers don't have to resort to underhanded tactics like data mining or invasive advertising to make a living. Instead, they can focus on creating quality, user-respecting software.

This isn't to say that all FOSS should come with a price tag. There will always be a place for gratis FOSS, especially in educational and non-profit sectors, tho in such cases developers should strive to ask for donations. But for the software that powers businesses and our daily lives, a paid model is more sustainable and ethical.

The beauty of this approach is its alignment with the principles of free-market capitalism. It's a voluntary exchange where value is given and received. Users pay for the freedom, quality, and respect that FOSS offers, while developers are compensated for their ingenuity and hard work.

[-] paperplane@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

A nice example of this is Ardour: A DAW that's free in the sense that the source code is GPL, but the prebuilt official binaries have to be paid for.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The assertion that non-paying customers do not provide value to a business is patently and demonstrably false. Especially in a free market.

A platform like YouTube benefits from non-paying customers because these customers still drive engagement and help solidify market share.

Non-paying customers still consume sponsor spots, which benefits creators, keeping creators on YouTube and therefore still benefitting YouTube.

Non-paying customers will promote YouTube just by using it, even for free, and create the impression that YouTube is the only game in town, instead of looking for and promoting alternatives.

Having a non-paying customer on your platform is in most ways better than having that customer become a paying customer on a competing platform.

The only time this dynamic no longer holds true is if YouTube believes their position is so entrenched that there is no more competition and they can squeeze the users all they want (end game enshitification).

[-] ridethisbike@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

The only time this dynamic no longer holds true is if YouTube believes their position is so entrenched that there is no more competition and they can squeeze the users all they want (end game enshitification).

Uuuhhh... Pretty sure that's where we're on now soooo....

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

this is a salient point sure, but you are perfectly capable of wording it in a way that doesn't also suck off a shitty malignant corporation. why the fuck would you sympathize with google? they have trillions of dollars, it is literally not at all comparable to your work.

thank you for being so mature and telling us peons the Real Mature Truths. your bravery is commendable.

[-] Sightline@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

Well said. Their business model is shit.

[-] darthelmet@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't think that's entirely true. Or at least not in the longer term view of it. YT isn't just some random store that doesn't want to deal with an unruly customer. It's a big tech monopoly platform. Like the other tech giants, their strategy has always hinged on becoming the only game in town. And they predictably use the same tactics monopolies have been using for the past century:

  1. Offer the product at such a low price that you take a loss and use your hoard of money to outlast would-be competitors who don't have a massive pot of money to burn. In YT/Google terms this is the fact that it's a free site and up until very recently they've done little to nothing about adblocking users despite being one of the biggest tech companies in the world, knowing it is happening, (It was in their chrome extensions search, plus they don't pay the creators for the no-ad views.) and having the capability to stop it at least for their browser, which a lot of people were already using. Why not go to war with adblockers sooner when their entire business is built on advertising? Because that's the cost they were willing to bear to turn YT into a monopoly. They could take the hit on not getting ad revenue from some users, but some hypothetical competitor certainly couldn't.

  2. Make switching hard. A site that's grown as large as YT has massive network effects. For viewers, that's where all the videos are. For creators that's where all the viewers are. For both that's where there is enough of a community that there are lively discussions in comments. Nobody outside nerds like us is going to some external site they've never heard of. If you want to get your stuff out there, you use YT. Then there are things like creator contracts to further discourage switching.

Ad block users aren't valueless to YT, or at least they weren't. They were a portion of those viewers and commenters that contributed to YT becoming THE video social media site. They comment, share videos around, maybe even contribute directly to creators to allow them to keep making YT video. You maybe lose a out on a couple cents from the lost ad views for each one of them, but the value of the network effect gained by keeping them around this long far outweighs that loss.

EDIT: Oh and how could I forget: They get data from you. Sure, they can't directly sell ads for you off that data, but the more data they have in general, the better they are able to make predictions about other similar users, which is valuable.

They're doing this now because they can. They no longer have meaningful competition to kill off. The few that kinda cross into their market are also massive tech platform monopolies that are currently engaged in the exact same thing. They can't expand their customer base anymore, so now they're extracting more money from the captive audience they have.

And it's not just adblock users they're increasing the "price" for. YT has added an insane number of ads to their videos and increased the price of YT Premium. If adblockers died tomorrow, they wouldn't be like "What a relief, now that we've gotten rid of the freeloaders, we can finally lower our prices for everyone since they aren't bearing the burden of the non-payers." They just get to tighten the screws even further because they would have gained an even more dominant position over their users.

In a fairer world, we'd all pay a reasonable amount for the things we use or move on to an alternative if we'd rather not. But we don't live in that world. We live in capitalist hell world where everything is a monopoly and the government is so captured by those corporate interests that they basically never enforce even the meager anti-trust laws we do have.

[-] Sightline@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

They already make money off of us, what the fuck are you talking about?

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

You missed my point. If you’re blocking ads/trackers, and refusing to pay for premium? Then they aren’t making money off of you. You’re consuming their resources for free. Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is that’s how the website makes money. So when you eliminate those, you eliminate any reason for them to pander to your wants. The only potential benefit to keeping you around would be to help drive engagement. But since they’ve run all the competition out of business, they don’t need to worry about that because they don’t need engagement from the 1% of users who still try to block ads.

[-] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

Regardless of your feelings on ads/tracking being invasive, the fact of the matter is that’s how the website makes money

It has nothing to do with feelings. The data they track has a value. You’re claiming they “aren’t making money off of you”. They are.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago

Not in the slightest. They want to have their cake and eat it, meaning they want you on the platform but using it their way. Why else would they put so much effort into this fools errand of subverting ad blockers?

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 13 points 11 months ago

If that were true they'd have restricted YouTube to logged in people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 23 points 11 months ago

Asking genuinely, if you were in charge of YouTube, and you don't think anyone should pay for YouTube, and you don't think you should run ads, how exactly would you go about paying for the massive amount of engineers and infrastructure needed to keep the lights on?

[-] stevedidwhat_infosec@infosec.pub 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

For me personally, I would rather pay for a service than with my time via ads.

That said, the services provided these days are unreliable, gatekept, metered and not enjoyable. Why should I pay for shitty service?

Therefore I’m only left with one option and my wellies are strapped tight! 🫡

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 10 points 11 months ago

I...honestly don't think you're particularly honest about this.

Mainly because Youtube red exists and it's main sell is removing ads, but we already know the answer to that. (Most people don't actually want to buy the service)

And it's not like it's shitty service. It's Youtube without ads.

[-] kobra@lemm.ee 11 points 11 months ago

I don’t need music, I just want ad free YouTube. There isn’t an option for users like me.

[-] KnightontheSun@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

yt-dlp A bit of an inconvenience, but if it comes to having to sit through ads to see it on YT, I will download the video to prevent that. I already archive a couple of channels I love.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

...?

Just use the ad free youtube...and don't use the music section?

That's what I do 90% of the time....

[-] samus12345@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

The price reflects including the music service whether you want it or not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago

Well, if YouTube were truly so terrible that you think it offers no real value, you wouldn't use it at all. If you yourself don't use it, that's all well and good, but if you do still use it anyway but block ads, then you're admitting that it offers some amount of actual value while refusing to pay for it. In that case, it's hardly unreasonable for YouTube to decide to not take on the cost of offering the service to those that aren't going to pay for it. You'd probably be more than a little annoyed if your boss told you that you'll be working extra hours for free.

[-] RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip 19 points 11 months ago

There’s nothing inherently valuable to YouTube other than the fact that it’s the default video hosting website because it got there first. You can find other similar websites that provide video hosting that is equivalent, just without the massive audience YouTube has. Keep in mind your argument only works for G rated content because anything that is slightly controversial, even history based content, gets demonetized and there’s an entire other website called patreon that gained popularity because YouTube wasn’t paying its content creators for their work.

YouTube has lots of options for getting people to pay for their content. If they opt to pursue ad revenue they need to accept that a subset of their audience will use 3rd party apps to get around that. Most people don’t have ad blockers so it’s really only people smart enough to download the plugins. To me this is akin to Reddit pissing in the face of their users for the sake of maximizing profits. I get why they’re doing it, but for every trick they employ to get around ad blockers someone will come up with a workaround and I’ll just download that plugin each time.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] HowManyNimons@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

YouTube is okay. I'll watch it if it's free or very cheap. I won't watch ads for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)
[-] TheAlbatross 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Honestly?

Not my monkeys, not my circus.

I don't care what YouTube wants to do or how they do it, they need viewers and if they can't figure out how to keep em, ah well. They gotta create a service that caters to my behavior, not the other way around.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

Well, actually, they have to create a service that caters to people who bring them revenue. If that isn't you, they don't have to, and actively shouldn't, cater to you at all.

You're just saying "I don't have an actual answer" in a roundabout way.

[-] TheAlbatross 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well, I don't, but it isn't my problem.

Google makes enough money as is, I don't really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I'll do other things with my time.

I don't really care about Google's wellbeing. I pay directly to the content creators I like and I hate seeing ads anywhere in my life and I'm willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.

If they say that the marketing data they scrape from user activity isn't enough for em, well, sucks to suck I guess.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] deranger@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

That’s a flippant response when you were asked specifically to pretend they were your monkeys.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 9 points 11 months ago

In 2022, Youtube was getting $14 ARPU for free users (from ads) and $120 ARPU for premium users. With premium users contributing so much more to their bottom line, one would think they would strive to keep those users subscribed, but instead YouTube started raising prices and even stopped honoring the grandfathered price points their long term subscribers (like myself) were at. I would have kept paying for my family subscription indefinitely at that price point - which is still several times higher than the revenue they would get from me as an ad-consuming customer - but they opted to not allow that, so they lost all the revenue they’d been getting from me entirely.

Youtube specific stats are hard to find, but Alphabet is one of the most profitable companies worldwide, with a profit of just under $80 billion in 2022, so your question is honestly irrelevant. The status quo would have been more than enough to keep the lights on. This isn’t about making ends meet; it’s about getting as much profit as they can.

Even so, the person you replied to didn’t say YouTube shouldn’t run ads or charge for a subscription. They were talking about themselves and their willingness to watch ads or subscribe.

And because enough people aren’t like that person or like me, YouTube is going to continue to grow their revenue and their user base - for now, at least.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

You think it costs $30b a year to run YouTube?

There's a middleground between reckless profiteering and not making any money at all. And yet YouTube discontinued their $5 tier. But no, it's the kids who are out of touch.

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

yeah, them needing the money (??) or whatever is one thing, but this arrogant fucking attitude lately is so repugnant. set up a patreon, don't fucking fight against your users like this. it's not exactly real TV or oxygen, it's fucking youtube. it's 90% garbage anyway

[-] Joncash2@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago

That's fine, but that's why Google is doing this. They need people who won't watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs. I mean what business survives with zero income? The question google is asking isn't whether or not some people will stop using it, the question their asking is will enough of them stop for them to generate income.

[-] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago

If Google can pay shitloads of money to people through ad revenue, then they can also make a profit off of the platform. Claiming they make no income is just complete bullshit.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] HarkMahlberg@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

They need people who won’t watch ads to stop using it to lower their costs.

This assumes that the biggest cost to Youtube is serving the content, not storing the content. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's a valid question because if storage is the larger cost, then it doesn't matter how many visitors visit the site, Youtube is still warehousing all that content. By the way, in that scenario, it's actually better for Youtube to keep as many viewers on the site as possible, adblockers or not, because they can use higher viewer numbers to increase the price of the ad space they charge to advertisers.

I mean what business survives with zero income?

A business that kills it's competitors by operating at a loss at first, and then jacks up its price once consumers have nowhere else to go.

[-] NightOwl@lemmy.one 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I don't care enough to simp for a company that has enough money to start off with a losing strategy to begin with of burn money to kill competition then is surprised that they can't easily revert back the strategy that "won" them the market dominance in the market dominance in the first place.

And YouTube is one of many services that exist to try and convince people to make a Google account anyways. Without YouTube that's one less reason to make an account with other email providers around and less of a reason for Apple users which is growing in dominance.

load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
712 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59166 readers
1855 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS