In the days before YouTube we were still working on a unified video player in browsers and internet speeds capable of handling videos. Also, think about how YouTube was before Google bought it. That was them making a modest amount of money to keep the lights on.

You know what has happened since then? Bought by a billion dollar company to make profit. That's the point

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

YouTube was hemorrhaging money. They were just trying to hold on long enough to find a buyer.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I suppose you're going to argue that other video hosting sites that are an objectively better experience than youtube can't last? Or that youtube is better now that it's owned by someone else?

The point is that online sites that are around to make profit are actively sapping online communities. It's what's happening to reddit as well.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying that any platform has to be financially viable. Bandwidth and servers cost money.

Name a platform that allows essentially unlimited uploads and hosting of HD video, doesn't have ads, is free for all users, and isn't losing money.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

Ok, and I'm saying that a platform can make money without causing a privacy crisis that requires a government to step in. Plenty do.

I'm saying that the thing that makes sites more bloated and unpleasant is when they get retooled to squeeze every last drop of profit from their users.

We don't have to turn this disagreement into "sites need to make money" vs "everything should be free". There's a middle ground, in which my original point sits.