I mean, that’s great and I’m glad you’re happy with that but:
This is a privacy forum and that is the opposite of privacy. Every video, like, click, and comment you submit is still used to profile you. There’s no opting out.
I love watching YT videos but the actual interface is fucking horrific: I can’t filter out the garbage I don’t want to watch like Shorts, podcasts, and live videos. This would be very simple for YouTube to ad.
They hijack my search results if the video I’m looking for is not in the top 5 to show me more “suggested” videos.
My home feed, instead of showing content relevant to my interests that I’ve expressed using likes and subscriptions, is full of garbage clickbait and videos I already watched 1 time 8 years ago, and the same fucking videos that are already in my subscription feed. It’s ridiculous how bad they are at this.
If I’m paying for a service I expect to not see ads and YT premium does nothing about in-video ads.
The actual creators are paid a tiny fraction of what YT is, despite providing the vast majority of the value. And YT treats them like garbage anyway.
When there is a competing subscription service that solves these problems and works well, I’ll be happy to sign up for that. Until then I’ll keep using LibreTube and YT can eat a Weiner.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though.
3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough so that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though.
3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though.
3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though.
3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4.
Hard disagree.
You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”.
…of course you can?
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content,
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable
Incorrect again.
As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4.
Hard disagree.
You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”.
…of course you can?
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content,
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable
Incorrect again.
As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
I mean, that’s great and I’m glad you’re happy with that but:
This is a privacy forum and that is the opposite of privacy. Every video, like, click, and comment you submit is still used to profile you. There’s no opting out.
I love watching YT videos but the actual interface is fucking horrific: I can’t filter out the garbage I don’t want to watch like Shorts, podcasts, and live videos. This would be very simple for YouTube to ad.
They hijack my search results if the video I’m looking for is not in the top 5 to show me more “suggested” videos.
My home feed, instead of showing content relevant to my interests that I’ve expressed using likes and subscriptions, is full of garbage clickbait and videos I already watched 1 time 8 years ago, and the same fucking videos that are already in my subscription feed. It’s ridiculous how bad they are at this.
If I’m paying for a service I expect to not see ads and YT premium does nothing about in-video ads.
The actual creators are paid a tiny fraction of what YT is, despite providing the vast majority of the value. And YT treats them like garbage anyway.
When there is a competing subscription service that solves these problems and works well, I’ll be happy to sign up for that. Until then I’ll keep using LibreTube and YT can eat a Weiner.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough so that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.
It doesn’t happen if you used Piped.
Hard disagree.
…of course you can?
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
Incorrect again.
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
It doesn’t happen if you used Piped.
Hard disagree.
…of course you can?
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
Incorrect again.
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
I think this is the most important thing in this whole thread