Edit: Since you guys are downvoting my post, I’ll assume my post does not belong here, because I represent a POPULAR opinion. Remember “ah yes, this is unpopular = upvote” “wait no, everyone likes nutella with butter, popular opinion = downvote”

YouTube Premium is a good deal for most regular YouTube users.

I don’t think there’s much of a debate here, yet most people seem to disagree with me

Pricing: Absolutely fair IMO. Think about other streaming services. Netflix is more expesive, even music streaming services are barely cheaper. If you can’t afford the single pricing, get a family plan, share with whoever you trust enough. How many videos do you watch in one month? How many minutes of ads is that? Likely quite a few minutes.

Who gets the money?: What did you expect? A lot of it goes to YouTube -> Alphabet/Google. Of course it does. Hosting a seemingly unlimited amount of on demand fullHD or even 4k videos and streams for a MASSIVE userbase is not cheap. Still, content creators do report that YouTube premium earnings per viewer are way more valuable than YouTube free earnings per viewer. So, I fail to see the problem.

Financially supporting Alphabet/Google: I mean, yeah, they aren’t the greatest company, I’m with you on that. If you have a problem with supporting such a company, don’t use their services. If you don’t pay for them with money, you pay with time by watching ads. If you do neither, you’re basically commiting petty theft. The victim being a “bad” company doesn’t make that better.

Using AdBlock: Like I just said, that’s petty theft and it’s not okay just because you’re doing it to a big bad company. Running YouTube costs money, if more people use it, it costs more. If nobody pays for it, it’s dead. Additionally, if nobody pays, no content creator earns money. That’s a secondary effect, as you could still pay creators directly.

Paying creators directly: If you do that, good on you, good on the creators. If everyone uses AdBlock with that, say bye to YouTube. Creators will use another hosting platform, either like YouTube (rinse and repeat) or selfhosted.

Content creators host their own content: That would be so so bad. The overlap of “content creator”, “able to selfhost” and “willing to selfhost” is small. Anyway, even if everyone pulled it off, most would go out of business for sure. Also, have fun browsing videos if everyone selfhosts. We’d need a global platform for browsing now:)

YT premium paywalls features: Yes. So? Heard of Bitwarden? People love that company for their generous services. Even they paywall features like TOTP and emergency contacts. Paywalling features is normal. In fact, it’s to be expected. Just because something was free once doesn’t mean it should still be free. Just because a part of it is free doesn’t mean everything about it should be free.

The YouTube App sucks / YT Music sucks: Nobody forces you to use it. But if you do, clearly you see some value there. Pay for it in some way if they request you do so.

Tell me why I’m wrong.

  • MucherBucher@feddit.deOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

    However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You’d support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says “hey it’s not for free, but I won’t actually know if you paid or not” (well YouTube does know, but that’s secondary)… It’s not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it’s not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Right, but your morals aren’t the same as mine. I personally don’t find enough value in content on YouTube to justify the cost. So I’ll watch with ads because that’s how much value I personally put in it. I don’t personally care if that’s not moral in other people’s eyes, it’s available to me, and I’m not going to feel bad for doing it.

      If it was only on a pair subscription I wouldn’t watch at all. It could be argued that them getting anything from me is better than me not watching and them getting nothing.

      • MucherBucher@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Watching with ads is completely fine. I just cannot justify watching 15-30 seconds of ads for a single video (it’s probably more nowadays).

        I actually did say just about that in my post, so I don’t see how you disagree with me.

    • kjPhfeYsEkWyhoxaxjGgRfnj@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      But if I subscribe, I don’t see ads, they don’t get ad revenue; they get subscription fees. I don’t subscribe, they get ad revenue but not subscriptions. Its not both, there is no denial of pay

      • MucherBucher@feddit.deOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        IDK maybe I’m bad at english or something, but this is exactly my point. Either you pay, or you watch ads. Both is okay, they get paid. I just don’t think YouTube with ads is a better deal than Premium, due to the amount of videos and therefore ads a regular person watches on the daily.

        • kjPhfeYsEkWyhoxaxjGgRfnj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Maybe so. If both are ok, then what’s the claim of immorality?

          I would agree it’s just a better experience for me personally. If I use a product extensively I would prefer to pay for it to remove the ads. But it doesn’t affect the creator’s compensation so far as I can tell.

          • MucherBucher@feddit.deOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Immorality only lies in circumventing ads via third party solutions. By that, you don’t follow the contract, you have no right to consume their content, then.

            • Actually I have every right to consume the content because I control what’s on my screen and I never agreed to their terms of service. God bless the basic human rights we have in the EU

              I am under no obligation to do anything and am simply exercising my human rights as the owner of my device and freedom to tailor my own experience on the internet.

              You have been severely brainwashed by corpos which is not my problem. You can keep whining about this as much as you want to and it won’t change reality, hun

              • MucherBucher@feddit.deOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                You are still not understanding. EU law doesn’t protect you from having to pay for goods and services. EU law just banned tools like adblock detection, because you have a right to privacy under data protection law.

                It’s like going to the store and hiding a pack of chewing gums in your pocket. If a store employee accuses you of stealing, they have no legal basis to force you to show the gum. They don’t have elevated law enforcement rights. Your pocket is private.

                In the same way, google is not allowed to act on the information, that you use adblock. It’s still violating their TOS, which you ACCEPT by accessing their platform. Since we don’t have a petty internet police, nobody will proscecute you for it.