Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay To Subscribe To YouTube? 177
Long-time Slashdot reader shanen writes:
If you don't watch YouTube, then more power to you, but if you do watch it, then I bet you have noticed more and more intrusive and noisy and much longer ads along with frequent reminders that you can pay up and make the noise go away.
Feels like extortion to me and I'm not going to pay a blackmailer. But someone must be paying up. Is it you? Or do you even know anyone who is paying?
The original submission also shares shanen's argument that Google is exploiting copyright loopholes to monetize other people's copyrighted content. "It wouldn't even matter how much pirate video is uploaded to YouTube if the Google didn't make it easy to find... If the Google actually wanted to stop the piracy, the algorithm is obvious... The famous content has famous keywords and the searches for those keywords can be whitelisted. Pirate results can be disappeared and replaced with results that belong to the actual creator with legitimate exceptions for fair use." (But instead, the argument goes, they're just asking you for money to remove their ads on that content...)
That's shanen's opinion -- but what's yours? And would you pay to subscribe to YouTube?
Feels like extortion to me and I'm not going to pay a blackmailer. But someone must be paying up. Is it you? Or do you even know anyone who is paying?
The original submission also shares shanen's argument that Google is exploiting copyright loopholes to monetize other people's copyrighted content. "It wouldn't even matter how much pirate video is uploaded to YouTube if the Google didn't make it easy to find... If the Google actually wanted to stop the piracy, the algorithm is obvious... The famous content has famous keywords and the searches for those keywords can be whitelisted. Pirate results can be disappeared and replaced with results that belong to the actual creator with legitimate exceptions for fair use." (But instead, the argument goes, they're just asking you for money to remove their ads on that content...)
That's shanen's opinion -- but what's yours? And would you pay to subscribe to YouTube?
Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's a deliberately broken phone and tablet model. Desktop doesn't have that "feature". Phones shouldn't, either.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is worth it for the download and "play video in background" alone."
No. I use an old phone for that for free.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "download"? (Score:3)
What do you think streaming is, other than downloading?
I suggest not configuring your client to overwrite the pointer to the downloaded video in memory, and making sure the memory is not of a volatile kind.
I would also suggest not falling for protection rackets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"play video in background"
We used to call them audio drama and you can get those at audible.
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto, the included access to their music selection Google Play makes it even better. I had a subscription for the latter and when I found that out, I flipped to the Youtube subscription. I watch at least 60 hours a month of Youtube so for me it was worth it.
No. + Adblock. (Score:2)
No.
And using adblock.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is Alphabet/Google/YouTube/Doubleclick is such an evil shitty privacy invasive, targeted manipulative arseholes and corruptors of democracy to favour their greed and ego, that giving them any money is just serving evil. Why pay for censored content, why pay for more invasive of your privacy, why pay to be targeted for manipulation, why pay to have you democracy corrupted by an extremely manipulative search engine.
Honestly give money to those evil cunts and you are serving evil. Better to go with other solutions and let people live in peace, rather than be digitally molested by Alphabet/Google/YouTube/Doubleclick.
I think people should go the other and do stuff like block all gmail address from the email reader, bounce them back, it is for the senders own good to change email providers and if you are not https://duckduckgo.com/?q=duck... [duckduckgo.com] you are out of date their search experience is vastly superior to Google's, so the only things left for me for Google are maps and Android, avoiding everything else, and I will most certainly not support evil by providing them with more funding.
It will not be long before the other streaming companies let Netflix, et at wake up to idea they can stream user created content for free or for very small payments. They can advertise by straight up commenting on desired creators content.
Youtube is nothing, a data hosting and distribution company, they are not the fucking content, that is entirely other people and more streaming companies need to start picking off Youtube content creators getting them to also upload content for distribution on their services.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
If by "maps" you mean navigation, try using the free "Here we go" app, it doesn't require internet if you download (for free) the maps to your phone, and it's not (to my knowledge) made by Google.
I've been using it for some years now, I like it a lot.
Don't use the app (Score:2)
I use my mobile browser for YouTube. I never see ads advertising subscriptions. I think that only happens if you use the YouTube app.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube on desktop web shows ads for subscriptions to both YouTube Premium and the more cable-like YouTube TV.
Re: (Score:2)
To distinguish YouTube Premium from RedTube (Score:3)
YouTube Premium indeed was once called YouTube Red. I imagine the change must have had something to do with explicit sexual videos available through RedTube.
Re: Don't use the app (Score:2)
Maybe we just need to stop thinking of the interface and content as one. Already for email using thunderbird is a very different experience from going to Hotmail, even if it's all POP3 to the same mailbox.
The app and website are not the videos. Use your "right tool" for YouTube content.
Try an ad blocking DNS! (Score:3)
If you can, set your phone to always use your own DNS. And then point it to an ad blocking one. :)
Preferably one that points them to a dummy server that serves up empties, so your apps don't stall.
I run my own BIND on my home server, and forced my phone to use my VPN in always-on mode, going to that same server. That way it always uses my DHCP and hence my name server, gateway, firewall, etc.
I also mounted the server's storage to a path on my phone (currently via sshfs), but I n
to avoid it being slow or sta
Re: (Score:2)
Adblock stops all ads for me so far on my computer. My TV shows ads though, because I haven't found a good adblock on my router that doesn't screw stuff up.
Me? No. (Score:2)
This is not the a la carte cable TV that we wanted.
Although if they were all $4.99 per month, then maybe.
Re:Me? No. (Score:5, Interesting)
All those streaming services are for commercial content. Youtube is for indie content.
If Youtube turns into yet-another-commercial-content provider, then it will be giving up the indie content in the process, and dont for a second think there arent other platforms that will gladly take over the indie content. Twitch is one such platform poised to do so.
I realize that Google has failed to create their own compelling commercial-content-provider, but that in no way makes it the correct movie to try to ham-fist Youtube into being one. It would come to be known as the most epic fail of the digital age to abandon the indie content dominance that they have.
Every move Google has made in recent years w.r.t. Youtube has been threatening to weaken their own dominance of indie video. There are indie Youtube channels with over 4 million subscribers that Youtube now makes ZERO dollars off of for Youtubes political partisanship reasons and no other.
Maybe some people believe that "because advertisers dont want to advertise on that" is a valid excuse, but why is it that cable and broadcast television doesnt have that problem? Other media has been giving advertisers a choice about what programs and channels to advertise on for far longer than most Google employees have even been alive. Youtube just needs to do that too, but they wont, and thats the real truth of their "because advertisers" excuses, that that excuse is bullshit and always was. Its a flat-out lie.
For proof of this, lets consider Louder with Crowder. Millions of subscribers, viewership numbers that outclass most cable t.v. channels, and was fully demonetized by Youtube "because advertisers" about 6 months ago. Crowder has somehow gotten his own advertisers. Walther is a commercial company that purchases sponsorship on his show. Their "because advertisers" excuse stems entirely from not letting advertisers like Walther choose.
Now, giving advertisers a choice as to what to advertise on may cut into Youtubes revenue. While this can clearly be true, it does not make "because advertisers" a valid excuse. It makes the true excuse "because a system that lets advertisers choose, like what broadcast and cable television has been doing for decade upon decade, will hurt our profits."
Youtube IS slowly destroying its indie dominance. It isnt just from what comes from their bias. Its also in their increased push for commercial content. Its a huge mistake. They wont be able to get the indie market back once its gone, and the commercial content makers have already proven that they will jump ship to their own platforms sooner or later (just ask Netflix about that.) The indie market is the one thing they can surely hold onto, and they are doing everything they can to throw it away instead.
Only streamers may upload videos to Twitch (Score:3)
dont for a second think there arent other platforms that will gladly take over the indie content. Twitch is one such platform poised to do so.
A Twitch user must be an Affiliate in order to upload a video to Twitch (source [twitch.tv]. Only regular live streamers are eligible for Affiliate status (source [twitch.tv]). This means that a user who ordinarily makes scripted, edited videos must first learn to make live streams in order to gain enough subscribers for Affiliate status. What are good resources for a user to make the transition from edited videos to live streams?
Maybe some people believe that "because advertisers dont want to advertise on that" is a valid excuse, but why is it that cable and broadcast television doesnt have that problem?
Because broadcast television and basic cable television channels have "broadcasting standards and prac
Re: (Score:3)
A Twitch user must be an Affiliate in order to upload a video to Twitch (source [twitch.tv].
And that can be changed at any moment. Thus, you didnt say anything meaningful.
Because broadcast television and basic cable television channels have "broadcasting standards and practices"
Don't mix things up. You are attributing the wrong reason for this. Broadcasters have a limited resource, broadcast time. They are trying to maximize advertising revenue for this time.
Also because broadcast television and basic cable television channels have enough scale to shop a series around to Big National Brands that won't give an individual the time of day.
You've got it entirely backwards. Advertisers are the ones shopping around, not the broadcasters. The broadcasters are simply waiting for the advertisers to bid on time. Some content is notable for the heights that the bidding gets to, such as du
Re: (Score:2)
Really? https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Christmas movie.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been saying it for years. Optimistic idiots think: If I pay $80 a month for 80 channels, and only watch 5, then with "a la carte" cable I'll only pay $5 a month for the 5 channels I watch.
It doesn't work like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It works great for me. I'm paying $2/mo for Hulu, and everything else throws me another free trial month every year that's plenty for watching everything I care about on their platform.
It seems a lot of people just underestimated how many channels they want to watch and how badly they want to watch them.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed Apple TV+, YouTube Premium, every premium (Showtime, Epix, Starz, etc) and probably way more.
For years people told me that they wanted a la carte TV channels, and I told them that they really, really didn't, that channels would cost more a la carte than bundled. If you get 200 channels for $100, that doesn't mean that each channel is $0.50; it means that the ones you watch are $5-$20 each, the ones you ignore are a few cents each, and the shopping channels are -$2 each.
It's actually good for me;
Hahahaha (Score:5, Interesting)
No.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Rarely go there, never use the app only my browser with ad blockers, and cannot fathom why I should pay them money so that they can track me and serve me ads. Not just no, but hell no.
Re: (Score:2)
At the random occasion I see an ad it's not relevant anyway.
But I wouldn't pay, it would be a way to make me leave.
For the channels that I think are really worth it I use Patreon to make sure the creators get paid.
probably not (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people on the internet have gooten used to "its free", partly because Google built that model out. now they want to charge.... there would be a big backlash. Its not as if YT makes its own content either, people would pay for netflix or similar, not for random videos on YT.
That's important to note, all that YT content could go elsewhere, all the music to a different streaming channel (MTV online might reappear) and the good scraps to their own channels, or get picked up by other broadcasters to get delivered alongside their own content. Could I see Dust or Omellete on Netflix.. yes, easily. Could I see "OMG you'll never believe the top ten thing you never knew about what Microsoft does in Windows"... doubtful.
As for pirate content, kurzgesagt did a great piece on FB doing the exact same thing [youtube.com]. And it continues because the pirates end up giving FB the revenue that would not end up in the hands of the content creators.
Re: (Score:2)
''pirated content of youtube that are both monetized to someone other than the owner''
Citation please.
I do (Score:2)
Doesn't seem very likely (Score:5, Interesting)
Google seems to have a really, really, really bad track record of making consumers pay actual money for services. (They do have success at B2B paid services, e.g. GSuite). And they do have a really, really, really good track record of making money off of advertising. So, it seems much more likely that two totally different divisions of the company, that probably don't talk much, are trying to maximize their own individual KPIs, and from the outside creating the impression of some grand master plan. The advertising guys are stacking more and more ads into popular content (btw, thank goodness Adblock works perfectly on YT content... for now). The Youtube guys are trying to create direct monetization of their userbase for ... some KPI I can't think of (maybe to create regular recurring rev rather than lumpy ad dollars?).
Blind-eyeing??? (Score:2)
Kid, the media industry ITSELF is uploading that stuff "illegally", ever since at least Warner were caught red-handed, doing exactly that!
Because even with how utterly deluded those cokeheads are, even they realized that that way they actually make MORE money.
Something small independent music labels had already figured out less than a year after Napster. (I worked in the business from 1999 to 2004, and had contacts until 2007.)
Because it is advertisement.
So, yeah, a silly theory.
Re: (Score:2)
On longer content it's now common for the stream to be interrupted with ads, they don't just play at the beginning. We watch youtube sometimes on our fire tv stick. Probably I should try pihole but I'm between pis.
As Part of Google Play Music (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I started a subscription to Google Play Music when it first came out for $7.99/mo. It's still that much but now includes no ads on Youtube. The no-ads part is the main reason I keep it now.
Yep, same here, except I'd keep it just for the music. I see the ad-free YouTube as a bonus.
Qualified Yes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking. Just a solid service that let you share videos and nothing else (or just a social network and nothing else). Cost of running the service plus a reasonable profit for YouTube to invest in its future (cost + 20%, for instance).
With a few hundred million users paying, say $5/month, you should have no problem running a site like that. Especially since by paying users will have more of a sense of ownership and we’d likely get a more well behaved user base.
Of course, that’s not anywhere near the world we’ve created and now that the data collection/selling cat is out bag, I don’t see investors ever letting us go back. There’s just too much money to be made the current way.
(PS: if there are any investors reading this and interested in trying, DM me... Iet’s workshop this idea... :) )
Cost recovery versus profit (Score:2)
I actually advocate a "business model" called Charity Share Brokerage that could accomplish your objectives. But it will never catch on, because it's only for recovering costs and therefore it can't compete with the aggressive bastards who are hoping to win the lottery. Greed is a fake problem because there's no solution. No amount of profit will make the greed become satisfied.
Yeah, some person has to win the lottery. But even more people have to lose. Far more losers than winners.
In my original submission
Re: (Score:2)
I would pay for YouTube (and Facebook and other sites) if they were simply pay for the upkeep of the service and there was no tracking, ads, creepy stuff, or excessive profit taking.
I feel the same way, but I got tired of explaining, "If I get a free magic pony, yes, otherwise no" and just switched to "no."
Nope (Score:3)
ublock origin, mpv, youtubedl, or FreeTube (Score:5, Informative)
I never the YouTube website or app at all. I was shocked at all the intrusive advertising last time I had to use the YouTube android app. On the desktop with Firefox running your standard essential safe-browsing add-ons, YouTube doesn't show ads at all. I much prefer watching outside the browser, though. For that I use tools like mpv, youtube-dl or the big and bloated FreeTube application. Much nicer experience user experience with those. Once I cannot use youtube-dl, I'll not be watching youtube at all.
In the meantime, most of the channels I watch have other means of funding, such as Patreon, or sponsorships with promotionals I can skip through since I've seen them so many times. I don't mind channel sponsors asking for a promotional message in the video itself.
Amount (Score:2)
I hate those random commercials.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, I'd rather have to sit through as much as a minute or so of unskippable commercials at the beginning of a video than I would having to see even 5 seconds of a commercial that happens right in the middle of a sentence.
Either creators need to provide special marks in their uploaded videos which can indicate to youtube when commercials may possibly be inserted, or youtube should not allow the video to be publicly viewable unless the video has already been suitably sponsored and Youtube would not need to insert commercials into it anyways. Youtube could even provide tools for creators to assist in this, so that they may optionally provide time indexes after uploading a video which are points where Youtube can insert commercials if it wants to.
Re: (Score:3)
Youtube could even provide tools for creators to assist in this, so that they may optionally provide time indexes after uploading a video which are points where Youtube can insert commercials if it wants to.
I believe YouTube already have the tools [google.com], they're just not being used.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are seeing there is mostly pirates monetizing OTHER people's stolen content. That particular flavor of criminal is getting paid by the google for the ad clicks.
When I submitted the story I should have included a list of the forms of abuse. I'd only rank that one third or fourth from the top. I think the worst abuse is actually the fake news sites using YouTube to spread their lies and propaganda with viral marketing approaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if guaranteed to have no 'sponsored content' (Score:2)
I pay (Score:2)
Only (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if it is 100% ad-free. Zero sponsored contents. No ad before, during, after, or between videos.
Otherwise there's zero point.
the major problem with subscriptions (Score:5, Interesting)
Extortion and blackmail are differeent (Score:2)
Extortion: Pay money or suffer pain of some activity.
Blackmail: Pay money to keep information from being released.
These terms are not freely interchangeable.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, and you are right that I was sloppy in my wording. But it's Slashdot, after all.
Still, "extortion" sounds quite harsh.
Now I'm wondering what term should be used to describe paying to stop fake information from being released? After all, some of the heaviest users of YouTube are propagandists using YouTube for the viral promotion of fake news stories. It would be kind of a social good if I could pay the google to stop spreading so many lies, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm wondering what term should be used to describe paying to stop fake information from being released? After all, some of the heaviest users of YouTube are propagandists using YouTube for the viral promotion of fake news stories.
The intent is bribery, but they'll take your money and keep doing it, so it is actually just appeasement, which of course never works.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm wondering what term should be used to describe paying to stop fake information from being released? After all, some of the heaviest users of YouTube are propagandists using YouTube for the viral promotion of fake news stories.
The intent is bribery, but they'll take your money and keep doing it, so it is actually just appeasement, which of course never works.
Another good point, but I didn't get your other one regarding Epstein. However my theory is that his real business model was probably blackmail and his victims are hoping that his decryption passwords (for the spicy videos) died with him. In solution terms, he should have been required to wear an anti-suicide watch.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't just you, it's everywhere, even big name journalists and news organizations. I've been seeing and hearing it repeatedly through this whole Epstein affair and it seems like nobody even notices.
I Subscribe (Score:2)
I have no problem paying for stuff if it is reasonably priced, easy to use (and I use it a lot), and the model of free with ads, paying with no ads is also reasonable, so if you don't use a lot they have some revenue stream, and if you do and want the service to be sustainable in the long run, pay up. Just wis
Re: (Score:2)
>"What I find an asshole move is cable, which you pay, through the nose, to have 90% of crap that you don't like bundled and still watch intrusive ads that are louder than the original show and run longer and longer every day."
The difference is that anyone with any sense is and has been using a DVR (like TiVo) with cable, for countless years now. No commercials are forced with that model. Sure, they are there, but can be skipped quickly/easily. This is NOT the model that most streaming services (like
Re: (Score:2)
A DVR is so 90's
Monitor (Score:2)
>"Ask Slashdot: Would You Pay To Subscribe To YouTube?"
No. Because having a subscription guarantees that Google is then monitoring and manipulating things even more. Something I already don't want and take active steps to prevent.
I would much rather see a viable non-Google option emerge. One without censorship and manipulation, other than self-moderation and categorization by the users (and with opt outs and full disclosure as to what is being done). Several exist, but none really have enough inertia
Nope (Score:2)
If youtube was sponsoring content worth watching, maybe I would. In the mean time, I am fine sponsoring content creators directly.
Already do pay (Score:2)
9$ a month is it? I get google music too. I want to pay for services that offer my an add free experience. I would pay for slashdot too.
There are ads on youtube ? (Score:2)
I pay (Score:2)
I pay even though all my desktops are linux and no ads would be shown anyway. I'm really paying for Google Music (comes included with youtube sub) which allows me to listen to just about anything (like Spotify) and I'm also able to upload my own mp3s and sync them across all my devices. For that, it's worth it to me.
It doesn't work if I disable spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
I run ublock origin and noscript, and just by blocking the domains that let google spy on me across the rest of the web, I've somehow made it so that youtube videos won't play. So I have to use youtube-dl and download videos before I can play them.
For that matter, reCAPTCHA doesn't work, either. When I go to a site that uses reCAPTCHA, I get errors about not being able to connect to it. I'm not sure if that's actually about my blocking, though, since it works about one time in twenty.
If google wants to abandon their sneaky bullshit spying on my activity on other sites, then I'll consider giving them money for youtube. Otherwise, I'll just keep downloading until I can't any more. Then maybe I'll do something constructive with my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should stop blocking the relevant Google domains that serve the content you want.
As soon as Google stops using them to spy on my web activity on other sites, I'll do that.
Let us put it that way (Score:2)
I'd pay for no ads, not for fewer (Score:2)
As per title. None of this "you're paying but you still have to see this important message from our sponsors" BS.
"Subscription==ad-free" ship sailed decades ago (Score:2)
Magazines and newspapers have used a blend of subscription revenue and advertising revenue for decades before cable TV existed. Among other things, a paywall helps assure advertisers that a partly ad-supported publication's readership is likely to have enough disposable income to purchase the advertisers' products.
I almost did not subscribe....almost (Score:2)
So, I got really annoyed when I started getting 2 ads (not even 5s skippable), and even wanted to completely stop watching youtube....then I realized how hypocrite I am:
- about 1 month before, I stopped PrimeVideo because twitch would still show me 30s unskippable ads of their shows (the Gran Tour was the only reason for it, which ended 1 year ago....3 month twitch video retention was nice, but ads were the last straw)
- I still payed HBOGo for GoT which I still did not finish watching (left it somewhere in
No (Score:2)
I only use it occasionally. Except for the time I discovered the Red Green show was on there in its entirety in its own channel.
Yes (Score:2)
Well, I already do. Much the same reason as why I got Spotify Premium back in the day. When I start getting a lot of my media through a certain site, and that site has ads, then I strongly feel that I would rather pay money to get rid of the ads, than pay by watching ads and wasting time that could be better spent on something else.
I don't use Youtube Music or any of the other extras (why would I need another music service when there's Spotify) but just skipping the ads is worth it for me.
What ads? (Score:4, Insightful)
What ads?
You do use the uBlock Origin add-on [wikipedia.org], don't you?
No. (Score:2)
There are already lots of places to get Compressed All To Rat Shit video with Crappy 1940's quality comb-filtered "lets pretend it's stereo" Audio. Why would I want to pay for that? If you really insist on paying for that level of crap, then there are even "Under the Bottom" streaming companies that provide that, example, Crave TV.
YouTube, like WiFi, is for the kiddies to amuse themselves, and not something for serious use.
A 2-month trial might help you decide. (Score:2)
About 6 weeks ago I found that YouTube was offering a 2 month free trial of YouTube Premium. That means no ads on any video and also access to the Premium only content.
PRE-ROLL It's been great not having MID-ROLL ads scattered ANOTHER MID-ROLL all over videos POST-ROLL. Especially as some of them were multiple minutes wrong. I think the longest I saw was some 20+ minute long religious documentary, but usually they were at most 5 minutes and it had REALLY gotten annoying. Given I wanted to 'view' the
Ontology of YouTube abuse? (Score:2)
Upon reflection, I think my submission should have included some sort of ontology to categorize the various forms of YouTube abuse. I focused on the piracy because it's so flagrant and because it's what most of the eyeballs come for. Also, the piracy was heavily featured in Move Fast and Break Things (the book which I did mention, but which the EditorDavid cut out (though I basically like what EditorDavid did with my submission)).
However now I feel like it's too late to present the full ontology, so I'm j
No (Score:2)
No, but patreon (Score:2)
I don't think the content is worth paying for and if I do then I contribute directly via Patreon or similar and not through YouTube which might not guarantee the other party a fair cut.
Long before youtube was part of Google (Score:2)
I subscribed to Google music for unlimited music.
Youtube came along for the ride along with a whole bunch of other stuff and I really can't complain.
I may have to rethink the situation if that ganges
Don't forget Steve (Score:2)
depends on hhow much they want (Score:2)
Not currently... (Score:2)
If YouTube suddenly became paywalled, I mi
Technically no, effectively yes. (Score:2)
I do (Score:2)
but mainly because it's the only real consistent solution across all platforms. It's putting money where my mouth is where I say "I'll pay for good content without ads." I think there's a lot of good stuff posted by independent producers (ex: Big Clive) that don't post elsewhere worth saving my time not having to see ads,
That's the tradeoff - pay for it by being forced to watch ads or just pay for it. It's not crazy expensive.
I would and i do (Score:2)
But the ads actually made me think - I watch more youtube (educational and techie channels) per day than netflix or other media (don't have TV). It just seems fair to pay like 12$ for six people (family plan) pero month to get rid of the ads, pay youtube something, and give the creators a couple of pennies. This seems like a fair deal.
Ah, the package includes Youtube Music
Yes, if it served my interests (Score:2)
YouTube recently reorganized their front page. Before I'd see videos from my subscriptions, and perhaps other videos from related channels that might interest me. Now all I see is the clickbaity high-volume crap. The stuff that gets miliions of views and therefore maximum incremental ad revenue for Google.
My wife has YouTube premium and I asked her what she sees on the front page. Same crap. But why must this be? If there is no advertising to be had, then why not serve the paying customer's interests? I'
Yes. And I do. (Score:3)
I signed up for Youtube Red almost as soon as it came out mostly because I got annoyed once too many times by the pre-roll ads. But I'd also realized I was watching more Youtube content than broadcast TV (and I've had a DVR for years). As a very pleasant bonus, the initial subscription gave me Youtube Music - which I absolutely love because the music I listen to is on Youtube in preference to almost any other streaming service (though more of it is on Spotify now).
In my experience, Youtube is almost unique amongst video and audio streaming services because it sits in the middle of them like pretty much no-one else does. Plenty of indie video content, but also licensed content, too. And the music content has the advantage that you have the music videos as well as all the music.
Wade.
Not for $12/mo (Score:3)
Re:Pay for censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, Youtube is basically a hostile entity. Whether it is because of their political bias or lately their corporate-content bias. I like the term JimmyTube. It's fitting for so many reasons.
I exclusively watch independent creators on Youtube and just about everything Youtube did lately was to promote corporate content and penalize independent creators. If I pay anything I'll do so directly to those I watch. Youtube is nothing but a necessary evil that I'm forced to visit because they have a monopoly.
Re:Pay for censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, Youtube is basically a hostile entity. Whether it is because of their political bias
Stop watching Fox "news".
Youtube is nothing but a necessary evil that I'm forced to visit because they have a monopoly.
Free market... either support it or don't. But don't preach politics and then be a hypocrite.
Re:Pay for censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fox news has no more bias than most other main stream media. In some ways less; although it might not be in the direction YOU prefer.
You wouldn't happen to Mark Davis the conservative shill would you?
https://660amtheanswer.com/rad... [660amtheanswer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>"You wouldn't happen to [be] Mark Davis the conservative shill would you?"
No
Re: (Score:2)
Most insightful comment I've seen so far and I wish I had a mod point to give you. Never get 'em, for reasons always unknown. (Maybe 10 or 15 years ago I sometimes had a few?)
However my question would be "How can you actually find those 'independent creators' within the mountain of drek?"
Having said that, I have a link to share. It's my luckiest video, but how should I share it? If shared via YouTube, they might provide some "accounting" (as if I want to track the viewers). If shared from the place where An
Re: (Score:2)
You admit in the summary to not using an ad blocker, maybe you don't get mod points because you're just not a nerd?
As for how you find independent content creators, you have to have interests. There isn't a "give me cool stuff about whatever is cool that somebody else chose but is independent" channel that you can just passively watch. You have to have interests, and you have to type those interests in to the text search box and then press enter.
For example, if you type in "opamp circuit" or "yak shaving" y
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where you're getting that in the summary, but I have two responses on the topic:
(1) If I'm receiving free content that is funded by advertising, then I feel a moral obligation to accept the ads. However, an honest solution approach would allow me to pick my own ads rather than having them pushed down my throat based on secret profiles that they have built up from various sources. (How about an option to trade time for ads? You could accept the ads they want to shove at you for a shorter time, or
Re: (Score:2)
(1) If I'm receiving free content that is funded by advertising, then I feel a moral obligation to accept the ads.
What if you are receiving free content that is funded by the creator, where the advertisement revenue is just a nice bonus for the creator that isnt part of his creation model, and may have even been forced upon them?
There are a lot of math/science/nerd/gearhead/machinist channels on youtube that are exactly like that. They would do it even if they got no revenue from youtube, started doing it well before any creator had gotten any revenue from youtube, and are faced with the choice of (A) having ads but
Re:Pay for censorship? (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't pay for a YouTube subscription, but I do keep a Patreon account, and I split up ~$15/month between 3-4 creators I want to support, and I change subscriptions as my viewing habits change.
Yeah, a good chunk goes to Patreon, but I like knowing that the creators are directly receiving most of the money. Patronage is a saner model. I watch things, and if I keep going back, I'll chip in some cash to keep having those things to watch.
Re:Never (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
will give that one a look see, thank you kind internetizen.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw one once, my wife accidentally clicked the youtube app on her phone instead of opening it in Firefox, and I had to suffer through multiple seconds of hell before it was all over.
Never Again!