“You’re content sucks… And I can’t stop watching it. I also got herpes by watching too much brain rot”
Comment on YouTube is Losing The War Against Adblockers
Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
I’ll never understand the entitlement of these companies when it comes to ads. You send the content freely to my computer along with BS ads. It’s my computer. I’ll display what I want using programs I want.
If you want me to pay for that content with $ or by watching ads - then put up a hard paywall and stop sending the content for free. You can’t get uppity and complain about ad blockers - it doesn’t make any sense…
The real problem is your content sucks and nobody is willing to pay for it. And that’s your problem - not mine.
timewarp@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
That’s a weird way to look at it, obviously you’re watching the content.
I’d rather see it like this:
-
Free tier with ads
-
Subscription without ads (and better quality)
You are currently on the free tier. Yes, you can block ads (just like you can pirate movies), but that’s not the deal you were offered. I’m using an ad blocker myself, but I can understand the corporate side too.
They absolutely could add a hard paywall, but why should they if there are plenty of users who want to watch for free by paying with ads?
Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
No, I’m on the “you’re freely posting content to the internet - some of which I want to consume(videos), others not so much (ads)” plan. I never asked them to post anything, never entered a contract, etc.
If they lock the content up, and stop freely posting it, then fine, I’ll stop consuming and go elsewhere. If I can’t live without the content, then I can decide to pay up. It’s their content - they can do whatever they want with it. But they can’t get mad at ad blockers if they put their stuff out there for free.
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Totally fine by me! But by your logic you can’t get mad at them if they block you from watching due to using an ad blocker. Which brings us back to square one?
Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
Agree 100%. IF they figure it out - which they won’t for more than a day or two. They know the only real solution is to lock their content up and protect it, but they don’t, and then they get bent out of shape. The companies get weird about it - not the users.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
They definitely couldn’t add a hard paywall. It would collapse the system overnight.
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 4 weeks ago
Collapse what exactly? It would actually reduce strain on their servers and provide a better experience for paying users. Obviously they won’t do it because there’s a ton of users who watch ads (think of the average guy who plays YouTube on their phone or TV, with zero adblocking).
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
Just the revenue of paid subscribers will not pay the bills of any content creator that actually has employees or spends money creating content.
They won’t do it because all of their content would have no alternative but to disappear.
JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
They make more money via ads than they ever will with a hard pay wall. The innumerable advertisers paying google/youtube will always pay more than individuals paying for a subscription for no ads.
That’s why people who paid for no ads will eventually end up with ads again, despite paying. They don’t care if we pay or not. They want that sweet sweet ad revenue.
The sad fact of the matter is that we live in an ad based economy. Advertising is more profitable than selling an actual product. Having a platform to sell infinite ad space is a money making machine, plus people making free content for them to lure in more people to watch said ads. It’s super fucked up on youtubes part.
YouTube now exists as a billboard first, content second or third.
JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
And in all tiers: make an additional profit by selling your information without your consent (it has been decided in many courts that burying subtext deeply in forced terms of service isn’t consent)
We are already paying them by letting them harvest our data, ads or not.
Then they double or triple dip with the scenarios you describe. I am still paying them by being on their site with an ad blocker as they harvest my data and sell it to the highest bidder. Not to mention quadruple dipping with using our info and content without consent to train AI to sell.
They use the argument “your data/art/photos/videos are freely posted on the internet, so we can use them how we please”. If they publish content openly on the internet, then we are free to do with it as we please.
They can’t use the argument but say “no no no, it doesn’t apply to US”
-
Toribor@corndog.social 4 weeks ago
I was paying for Google music until they took it away from me and told me it was Youtube Premium and then raised the price twice.
Not exactly what I’d call a great value proposition.