•  xray   ( @xray@beehaw.org ) 
    link
    fedilink
    English
    22
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I guess this will be an unpopular opinion, but YouTube is justified in doing this imo. Video hosting isn’t cheap, especially providing 4K & 8K. They’ve gotta be able to support costs somehow, and if you’re not paying for Premium, you should be paying with ads. You’re also preventing the content creators from being compensated for content that you find valuable, useful, and/or entertaining.

    I know ads are annoying, and I hate them just as much as you do. But a big reason why we have people who make super niche videos that help you learn how to fix something on your car or those regular videos that you watch every week is because the creators are able to get compensated for their work. Are you really saying that utility and entertainment isn’t worth 30 seconds of ads and it’s better to not support them at all?

    Part of the reason we’re in this enshittification era of social media is because of the expectation of social media to be free. We need to learn from our past mistakes. It’s not sustainable.

    •  Domiku   ( @Domiku@beehaw.org ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1911 months ago

      Yeah, I kind of agree on this. The real question is: is YouTube currently profitable, and they’re trying to squeeze even more out of users?

      It would be nice if companies could look at a tidy profit and just say “that’s enough” and leave it be. Alas, that’s not how capitalism operates…

    • They could limit 4K and 8K to paying users and most people probably wouldn’t even notice.

      Their video player is dumb enough to automatically default to 4K even if your monitor is only 1080p. That must waste a lot of bandwidth.

    •  Sphere   ( @sphere_au@reddthat.com ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      411 months ago

      There are plenty of viewers who don’t want/need/care about the resolution. Especially not 8K, probably not even 4K. People who watch on their phone, probably won’t even notice if the content doesn’t go above 720p.

      Anyway, if YT wishes to charge for their service, they should try having more reasonable fees, and making sure fees actually remove all ads from the service, and actually reward creators fairly - they get much less than they should as a proportion of fees paid.

      As it stands, it is much better to subscribe to the likes of Nebula or to individual creators through Patreon (if they host their videos there). The bill might end up adding up to something similar or even more than YouTube Premium, but at least you get what you paid for and the money goes to the creators, not to line Google’s executive’s pockets, which in the end means better content, better platforms and a better viewing experience.

    • I agree, a lot of the creators on YouTube make these great videos and channels because of the financial compensation they are receiving.

      But there should be other video hosting platforms to break the monopoly of Youtube, so that Google would not be willing to do moves like this, for fear of losing viewers to other competitors.

      • They’ve never really made money through the AdSense payments though, and it’s not because of adblockers. YouTube is notorious for demonetizing videos for more or less no reason and for false DMCA claims that allow trolls to hijack AdSense from the video’s creator. Most money being made by YouTubers is being made through sponsorships or direct support through Patreon/Ko-Fi/etc

    • Except it’s hardly ever just 30 seconds of ads. In my recent experience, especially if you don’t press the skip button, it’s 2-5minutes of ads every few minutes of video, which is terribly excessive.

      Someone at work the other day put on a music playlist, and frequently YouTube would start playing ads that were HOUR AND A HALF LONG INFOMERCIALS.