this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
1161 points (94.1% liked)
Mildly Infuriating
35500 readers
1342 users here now
Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.
I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!
It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
7. Content should match the theme of this community.
-Content should be Mildly infuriating.
-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.
...
8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.
-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.
...
...
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not sure why you're getting downvoted, paying for services you use shouldn't be looked down upon. It's way easier then trying to always be ahead of the ad block blockers. I do block all ads on websites though
I started Premium as Google Play Music back when. Made sense as an alternative to Spotify. In my book, it still does. Ad-free YouTube is just a bonus for a music streaming service.
Agreed. Family plan is priced similar to Spotify, and ad free YouTube is a nice bonus
It could just have something to do with the fact that many people think ads are not only annoying but also highly manipulative, creating artificial needs in people, a tool to make already successful and rich companies even richer, ... and the surrounding technology to power them is unethical, hoarding tons of information, building profiles of people, tracking which websites they visit, what search terms they use, ...
When people talk about blocking ads, being frustrated about them showing up, it's just kind of disrespectful to be like "well you could just pay for the service, you know?". Besides, who knows how much actually ends up in the creators' pockets.
For most, very little. For the big ones, millions of dollars, and I always resent people lecturing me about "morals" because I'm not willing to subsidize a rich person's hobby.
Regular perople aren't making anything from YouTube, only the ones who had the capital to invest in their channels upfront. I don't feel compelled to pay for any of that, and I'd just as soon have their content filtered from my feed if it's immoral not to want to see ads.
The channel I use most often is Audible Anarchist, and I really don't think they give a fuck if I use an adblocker or even Piped to watch their videos.
Never forget that youtube filters us towards those creators, too. New creators saying a new message? They aren't gonna get any attention. Youtube de-prioritized LGBT and BIPOC content tags for years.
Yep, I never let YouTube recommend me content, because it's all highly-polished monetized garbage. They've made it purposely difficult to find videos uploaded by normal people. I used to watch this random lady with a pet squirrel who made videos with her phone, it was so fun to watch. Once it all became monetized, that got buried. It's to the point that most of what you see on the front page, you could just as well be watching cable TV. It's so bad.
I feel like an old man saying this, but it seems there are a lot of younger users who got sucked into the YouTube algorithm and see this all as normal or even good. That's why you get weird accusations of "stealing" content or not supporting "creators," as if it's my job to subsidize some rich person's hobby. The entire reason I liked YouTube is it was a free forum where users could share random videos with each other. If it's not that anymore, then it can die for all I care -- I don't want it.
I know. I managed a YouTube partner account, but also I Googled it just now.
$1-2 per 1,000 views is what I'm reading, but I can say I personally saw numbers at least five times less than that with the amount I managed.
If anyone wants to support a creator, just donate money to them directly. They'll be absolutely floored by the gesture.
I don't disagree, but things like that have to be monotized in some way or else they would not exist.
Yeah you can have YouTube premium and also use an ad blocker…. Being mad at YouTube is just the hot thing right now
I can afford it and use it all the time. It’s completely unreasonable to expect a company to provide a service for you for free without any way for them to monetize you. Hosting videos isn’t free so why should they pay for you to have access to their service
They’re datamining us to the tune of billions.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/google-says-it-doesnt-sell-your-data-heres-how-company-shares-monetizes-and
I can afford it and refuse to pay on principle. I actually would be glad if Google went out of business (although extremely unlikely). Monopolistic Companies like them use every opportunity to cheat and modify laws to give them advantage and remove any chance of a new innovative competitor taking over. Then they expect us to act honorable and play by the rules that they set up.
They are the cancer and we need to restore old antitrust laws that supposed to prevent them from ever getting so big.
You don't have to always be ahead. I've been using revanced for years now without problems. Before that Vanced. My computer has had ublock origin with 0 issues for years prior to the recent changes. To resolve those I literally had to click 2 buttons in the UI. Bam no ads. Have had no problems since. The time I've invested in configuring adblocking since I started watching YouTube, sometime around 2008-9, has probably amounted to 20 minutes of time.
You've definitely saved time by using an adblocker/Revanced, compared to having to watch ads or keep track of a paid subscription.
Because LemmyWorld is full of immature users who think that anybody who pays money for a thing they get extensive use out of is a shill. They think that using adblockers is somehow sticking it to The Man.
I'm starting to understand why LW has the reputation it does now.
LW has a reputation?
By being seen as the de facto "hub" for Lemmy, they've attracted a large chunk of Redditors who haven't left their Redditor attitudes behind them. As LW continues to grow, I've been noticing a lot more immaturity on the platform as of late. It's honestly a little disappointing to see.
I mean, attempting to monetize every single thing in life is juvenile and short sighted as well.
How else do you expect a globally-accessible video hosting service that requires no upfront costs for users to upload millions of video files at the cost of several petabytes of data transfers every day to function?
On donations?
I mean the flip side of that is that youtube would be worthless without the content the users generate.
The users generating the content people actually want to watch wouldn't be able to do so without the monetization that's in place, though. They can't make content for free, and shouldn't be expected to. And not all creators can rely on sponsorships to subsidize themselves, either, so most creators rely pretty heavily on ad revenue in order to stay afloat on the platform and keep the lights on.
If the creators can't afford to keep creating, then that also degrades YouTube's service as a whole, as well.
Really? I'm pretty sure people can make youtube content, and maintain a job. If youtube can't stay afloat without invasive ads happening every 5 minutes then youtube deserves to go the way of MySpace and every other dead platform before them. Simple as that. Youtube isn't a necessity.
If that's how you feel, then don't use it. Don't consume the content made by people who quite likely rely on ad revenue to pay their rent.
Simple as that.
"the price is what the market will bear" or whatever. I used to pay for ytp (red)/gpm. Paused for a month, went to resub, was like +$4 more a month. I don't value yt at ~$16, not even at ~$12 really but hey, they wouldn't fuck billions of users over in the pursing of profits, right? If yt/Google was a scrappy little startup, or a creator that I valued, sure, here's $5 a month through patreon. But they aren't, they bought a platform with no clear avenue to monetization/breaking even, and sat on it for 10 years, and then they want to be like 'please we are the victim here, it's the evil ad blockers that are forcing us into the streets!'.
G has, metrically speaking, fuck-tons of money. And if they so desperately need to clear their books, they can always close yt, anytime they want. Or they could let the customers pay what they think the service is worth. Hell, they could even shift the costs to the creators, which isn't the worst idea in the world - it'd at least stop kids from uploading their fortnite clips with them screaming into their mics. Not everybody should be allowed in front of a webcam.
But as long as it's [number higher than I value yt as] or [shitty experience], I will take option 3 and tell g to gag on my balls, and I shall enjoy my $5 and my ad-free experience.
Lots of options, but nah "fuck the users" came out on top. Acting like the users are the reason why they bought and operated a money pit for 15 years is just hilarious.
You say YouTube's solution was "fuck the users", but the solutions you offered are "fuck the creators". I'm not sure how that's any better.
I fail to see how asking creators for their cost in storage space is "fucking the creator" but okay
Storage isn't the only cost, or even the major cost, it's bandwidth to serve them
I don't see a better way for YouTube to be managed in the current environment, but I do agree it's not the best possible way; it's just the ideal way is limited to an ideal world, which we don't have.
That can be a shared expense, but bandwidth is variable and storage space isn't, so I imagine yt would charge by the MB for uploads but do a simplified floating split cost for bandwidth. Again, not everyone should be able to blast the internet with their (tbh) shitty unboxing, multiplayer raging, prank/harassment, 8 second meme, etc videos.
Everyone knew - or should have known - that yt was a money pit. I was happy that the og devs got bought out, but the writing was on the wall back then. The fact that g let it sit for so long before trying to recoup some funds for it is one reason why everyone is so pissy about the whole paying vs ads debate - it was free and non-intrusive for so long, the fuck do they need to fix it now?
So yeah, my idea is shitty for the people who aren't able to bankroll their video startup career, but if you just open yt and take in what kind of 'content' is being created and shoveled... The fact that they haven't at least pitched the idea is an active disservice to the internet as a whole. I don't think it would be so bad, short-term pain for long-term (theoretical) sustainability.