this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
429 points (94.8% liked)
Privacy
31952 readers
601 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fair point! See my answer on the other user's message where I talk about targeted patronization instead of overall subscription, I'd love to hear your opinion about it
I've read it. Since you asked my opinion, here it is ;)
(to be precise:) I don't pay 14/month to support creators. I pay 14/month to be allowed to skip the ads that support those channels while still supporting the creators and YT. That's what I'm paying for, and that's what's advertised in big bold face when you look at the YT Premium sub page:
OK, that plus YT Music but I don't care much about that forced bundle (I use Apple Music). Not a word on supporting creators... Because we know its ads that are supporting the creators, not the premium subscribers. As a premium, I just pay to skip ads. The difference is essential.
Creators do chose to sign upon YT knowing it's ad-revenue that will pay them, not the viewer's money (unlike say, on LTT Floatplane). As a a viewer, YT gives me the choice to a) watch those ads (knowing a small share will go to the creator) or b) pay a Premium sub to skip them (knowing a small share of my Premium will go to the creator). I chose b).
Is it enough revenue for each creator? It's not to me to say. Not more than it is the creator's job to worry if I, as a viewer, earn enough money myself to be able to afford the price of the YT sub ;)
Imho, a much more interesting question to ask would be: how much money to a creator gets from YT ads versus how much does the creator gets from a Premium viewer watching the same video? I'm willing to bet they get more from a premium than from the same viewer watching ads or at the very least that they get the exact same value but, quite obviously, I have no idea at all.
In the end, it's a simple question of offer and demand. I want to watch X creators. Most are on YT. I can skip YT ads for a fixed amount of money, knowing that if i pay that money all creators will be compensated at least the same as if I watched the ads. Win-win. If it happens those creators consider ad-revenues are not enough, it's a whole other issue. An issue they should discuss together between creators, and with Google. Not with the viewer or... only if it is to discuss the possibility of leaving YT and see how many viewers would be OK to follow them elsewhere and to pay to support their work.
edit: typos & clarifications.
I understand your view, it's indeed a lesser hassle to just pay the subscription and be done with It.
I can be wrong about It, but judging by how big corpos operate things most of that sub money probably will end up in the company account, not the creators (again, I can be wrong about this).
Wouldn't you say that using an adblock and supporting creators directly (hot take here since you could want to support 50 people), be a more reasonable and better approach?
Ads are fine, but while the company is being obnoxiously intrusive and predatory towards Its customers, it's hard to just pay to not be inconvenienced.
Agreed. Suffice to see the valuation of those corps. It's not the tooth fairy that gave them all their coins ;)
That said, it is YT that host the gazilion of disk space required to store the videos, it is them who manage the website and all our accounts and payments, it is them who deal with comments and moderation, it is them that finds advertisers for creators, and it is them that provide everything else I'm not even aware of. Do they dot it perfectly? Nope ;) But they do it and they too should be compensated for that. And it certainly not free: disk space cost real money, as people's salaries, even for Google. COudl they share it more generously? I'm willing to bet yes. But it's up to the creators, not to me the viewer (I would view them on any other platform they chose).
Better, I don't think so: it's the exact same money that is spend in a way or in another. It woudl also ends up costing me more. Which I probably would not agree with.
Reasonable? Well, it can. It depends your priority. Mine, as a viewer is not to have to spend too much of my free time in managing subs and payments. What I want on YT is to watch stuff and have a good time, not turn that into another job of mine (or then I should get paid, like for any job ;)
To be clear, if I had to micro-manage every single creator I like to watch, I would watch... a lot less of them. A lot. I can only think about two, maybe three.
And that would not be good thing for either the other creators and for Google/YT. As a publicly traded company, Google, needs to be perceived as successful (aka, having a lot of views at every single second) and creators themselves, they need the views in order to, well, become popular. No view, no popularity (no popularity, no sponsors). Note that I did not say they need 'Premium/paid views' or 'ad-supported views'. They need all the views they can get, even the ones behind ad-blockers. Ever wondered why YT doesn't punish users of ad-blockers by not counting their views as legit views? ;)
Not by me. I think they are not. I consider ads (and the constant profiling that comes along) a major threat to our society (very personal opinion, but mine nonetheless).
That's why I'm happy to pay to skip them (while still using an ad-blocker and multiple browsers, to make sure tracking is really screwed). That's also why I pay for my search engine (kagi.com: zero ads, zero tracking), that's why I have not owned a TV set since the very early 00s (when TV ads become so prevalent in my country, France): since there was no way to skip ads on TV, I stopped watching TV (I value my time, and my peace of mind, much more than any series or show... and then I can now watch them ad-free on Netflix or anywhere else if I really want, which is not that often). That's also why I use iOS and not stock android (less tracking less ads, less Google), that's why I also use a GNU/Linux Debian laptop and a Mac desktop. And that's why I will never use a Microsoft product ever again: I stopped using Microsoft the day they decided to introduce ads in their OS, making it obvious to anyone all the tracking that was going on. I refuse that. Ads in the OS, ffs...
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand that sentence (I try my best to get better but my English is still so limited). Would you mind explaining it otherwise?