Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#131

Post by intopieces »

mcnamaratw wrote: post #127
intopieces wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

loose lo͞os adjective 1. not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached. "a loose tooth" synonyms: not fixed in place, not secure, unsecured, unattached; More 2. (of a garment) not fitting tightly or closely. "she slipped into a loose T-shirt and shorts" synonyms: baggy, generously cut, slack, roomy; More verb 1. set free; release. "the hounds have been loosed"

Haha, but that's just what the dictionary says. I've decided that "to release" means "aardvark" which is a noun. So no verb "loose."

Since language is ultimately a social contract between speakers attempting to convey meaning, you'll need some people to agree with you on that before we can call it a change. But you're welcome to try :)

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#132

Post by wodenokoto »

intopieces wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

That is for natural languages. Written language is not a natural language, but an invented one, and are often governed by real rules.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#133

Post by wodenokoto »

askvictor wrote: post #119
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

How about: Show videos from creators who don't sign, but without any ads for anyone. I presume this would mean those creators wouldn't get any revenue at all.

I think that's still an option. At least that was an option for the music service.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#134

Post by omegaham »

ars wrote: post #113
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

I know :( I'm great with then than, it's its, even effect affect. But Loose vs Lose I constantly get wrong. Something about a single/double o changing the s to a z sound just isn't working for me. They should have spelled it looze instead :( Edit: Decided to check the etymology to see who came up with that spelling. Apparently lose is related to lost and loss, maybe that will help me remember. I hope so.

In general - if it's a verb, it's "lose." If it's an adjective, it's "loose."

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#135

Post by oh_sigh »

Balgair wrote: post #82
oh_sigh wrote: post #68

Does anyone know why content creators would not sign up to get ad money from the red subscription? Even if google wasn't threatening anything by not doing it, why wouldn't you take it? Are they afraid that red subscription revenue is going to be less than typical ad revenue?

Well, a lot of the creators are from very small communities. I personally can't afford to pay Youtube 10$ a month just to watch those people (I can't even afford cable). That means I don't get to watch them now, as far as I can figure. Likely, they will now stop those channels. Some of them do get revenue from the ads, at least enough to buy equipment and support the side hobby. Without that, those channels are gone,…

You can still watch the videos for free, but just with ads, which is just like it is today

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#136

Post by fenomas »

intopieces wrote: post #81
lisper wrote: post #61

I don't want to be a spelling and grammar nazi, but this mistake is being made consistently upstream so I thought I'd point it out: "Loose" is the opposite of "tight". The opposite of "win" (which I'm pretty sure is the word you meant to use) is "lose" with one "o".

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

You're confusing language and orthography. The posters above didn't use an incorrect word in place of the usual one, they used the correct word and spelled it wrong.

As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose". Whether the verb "loose" makes sense in context is neither here not there - it's not what the speakers were trying to say.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#137

Post by aiiane »

erebus_rex wrote: post #95
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

Could Google simply say to creators: "if you sign this you won't get any revenue sharing from red users but you'll still get your quota from free users." Gives them a financial incentive to sign up but allows them to opt out without making google eat the loss.

That is strictly worse than requiring them to sign up for the contract that includes subscription revenues or forgo revenue entirely.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#138

Post by anilgulecha »

seanalltogether wrote: post #109
krisdol wrote: post #32

So let me get this straight, if I stay on the "free" youtube with my adblocker, I can continue to see all videos ad-free? Or only the non-red ones?

I've been wondering when the day would come that youtube simply interleaves ad content into the videos and bypasses adblock. Perhaps they haven't done it in the past to avoid user backlash. Now they can simply say "upgrade to red to get back to an ad free experience".

IMO You underestimate the tiny amount of effort to the large payoff with adblocking.. What will come along is an adblocker which skips around the ad parts of the video automatically.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#139

Post by intopieces »

fenomas wrote: post #136
intopieces wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a mistake is made consistently in a language, it becomes the rule. If you know what the person meant, the word did its job, whether it was spelled the way you think it should be or not. Besides, the word 'loose' as a verb works perfectly well in that sentence: "They really had no other good choice except force them to sign up, or [release] revenue sharing status.

You're confusing language and orthography. The posters above didn't use an incorrect word in place of the usual one, they used the correct word and spelled it wrong. As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose". Whether the verb "loose" makes sense in context is neither here not there - it's not what the speakers were trying to say.

>"As such, the only way language could change to accommodate this usage would be if "loose" became an alternate spelling for "lose"

The comment I replied to mentioned that the mistake had been made "consistently upstream" -- I took this to mean that he has seen this mistake made multiple times by multiple people, which would indicate an alternate spelling has emerged, or that the two words have come to be spelled the same way.

And the comment about loose as a verb was a reference to the fact that the correction was not even necessary -- we can all get by with each other's occasional errors in typing. In this case, the error was so minor it didn't even affect the meaning of the sentence.

I'm a firm believer in avoiding any correction to adult speech, typing or spoken. People will use/abuse/misspell words no matter what, and pointing them out is merely an exercise in self-superiority.

Re: YouTube Will Remove Videos of Creators Who Don’t Sign Its Red Subscription Deal

#140

Post by eva1984 »

lmedinas wrote: post #6
bargl wrote: post #5

I think this is a bad decision but let's look at Googles options for showing content to users who pay for their service. Option 1: Don't show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal. Option 2: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but include ads. Option 3: Show you videos from creators who don't sign it's deal, but eat the loss. Option 4: Remove videos from creators who don't sign, and yo…

All of these will probably mean Facebook might have an opportunity in Videos. Recently Youtube screwed up with Gaming which cannot compete even close with Twitch, older attempts to provide a premium service also failed now this is just pissing off everybody.

I think youtube gaming is decent, why do you think it is screwed up?
Post reply on HN