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

141–150 of 201 posts

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

#141

Post by eva1984 »

anilgulecha wrote: post #138
seanalltogether wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Remember Youtube's object is not to get rid of ALL ad-blockers, it is make the use of ad-blockers really uncomfortable for the MAJORITY of the internet users.

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

#142

Post by intopieces »

wodenokoto wrote: post #132
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.

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

Governed by rules, yes, but not so strict as to resist change or so esoteric as to require such fervent pedantics. After all, written language is speech made into symbols, not outright invented independently. I still can't figure what the use is in lecturing a person on spelling. Are we concerned for the person's job prospects? For his standing in the world of online discussion forums? This from someone who "doesn't want to be a nazi" about spelling. If that's the case, why correct the commenter at all?

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

#144

Post by spacehome »

omegaham wrote: post #134
ars wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

"Loose" is a verb, too, though with another meaning.

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

#145

Post by ap3 »

1ris wrote: post #40
kej wrote: post #19

I'm actually kind of surprised that the YouTube terms of service require a new agreement and aren't structured in a way that would allow them to make changes like this unilaterally.

IMHO the concept of unilateral changeable contract does not make any sense. Never. It's a oxymoron.

Terms of service - not a contract

TOS can have a line that say terms can change, etc

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

#146

Post by bad_user »

dendory wrote: post #102

Ironic how Twitter, who turned their backs on developers years ago, are now forced to backpedal now that they are in decline. The same day, YouTube turns their back on content creators. A preview of things to come?

How is YouTube turning their backs on content creators?

I find it surprising that HN, a community full of people using ad-blockers to watch YouTube, would be against this. And on every freaking article discussing ad-blockers we decry the impossibility of paying a subscription instead. Well here's the subscription. And in the long run I'm sure it will benefit content authors as well.

But then Google is in a position like damned if they do, damned if they don't.

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

#147

Post by scrollaway »

kllrnohj wrote: post #71
scrollaway wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because Google is forcing everybody's hand doesn't mean everybody will follow suit. My channel certainly won't, simply because I don't like how they're doing this - to hell if I lose viewership because of it. PS: downvotes for facts without any actual explanation is really lame.

Is your channel even a "partner" channel? If it's just a regular channel you don't get asked, you are just part of the new thing. And what about this do you not like specifically? Are you unhappy that they didn't wine & dine you?

Yes, it is (not my personal channel obviously). And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.

Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.

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

#148

Post by [deleted] »

intopieces wrote: post #139
fenomas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#149

Post by scrollaway »

intopieces wrote: post #139
fenomas wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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

"I've seen this happen many times" doesn't mean a new spelling has emerged, by several orders of magnitude. If my pals and I decided to go wander around online forums, spelling "fish" with -sch, that wouldn't make it magically correct.

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

#150

Post by GPGPU »

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".

You could point out "its" vs "it's," too. It's like stabbing me in the eye every time I see it. It makes me stop and re-scan the sentence. (He got it wrong in the sentence starting with "Option 1.")
Post reply on HN