381–390 of 433 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". https://www.youtube.com/premium
Not the person you're responding to, but from how they phrased it I suspect they'd be annoyed that they're having to pay for YouTube Music as part of Premium.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i miss…
> You're telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. Do you really think Google just set the price arbitrarily? That would be surprising. My impression has always been that ad free tiers are actually less profitable for video providers.
I'd be interested to see those numbers. More importantly though, i don't want to pay more than my share if we're actually talking a fair trade of services here. If the justification is cost of video hosting vs ads i'd see, then it should be variable.
Also, it's including a service i have zero interest in. So upcharging alone is insulting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Stealing". Bless you, not giving up data while accessing something public is not stealing. Defending yourself against surveillance is morally unambiguous. Society as a whole, across the entire world, needs to start talking about how we support these services in a post-ad-revenue-model world. I suspect whatever the answer we settle on, it'll be less awful than what exists now.
Like I said. Consider yourself a hero for fighting the good fight or somebody who’s convinced themselves they’re entitled to something they didn’t pay for. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
I want to pay for what i use. Definitely. I struggle to see how a few dozen videos in hosting fees and possible ad revenue accounts to $14/m. It's insulting, upcharged, loaded with data mining and obfuscated for extreme profit in my assumption.
If they want to use ads as a justification for paying, great - show me how much i owe. How me how much money they missed out on by ads and i'll pay that happily. That also directly correlates to content creators, which is a win win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this comment never fails to appear on any Youtube blocker thread. Good for you that you pay Youtube , but stop rubbing it in our faces. each person has its own standards
>each person has its own standards What's your standard then? "It's my right to get whatever content/service I want for free and without ads, and I'll only pay if I feel like it"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd buy it, but $14/m is way too much for no ads imo. Especially since this is a "free" service where the justification for me paying X$/m is because i have to offset the ads i would have otherwise watched. You're (Youtube, not OP hah) telling me i provided $14/m in ad revenue? Of course not. I'd insta-buy if i could just pay to skip any ads i actually would have watched. Give me a stat showing me how many ads i miss…
What kind of asinine pricing plan are you proposing. Just pay the $14 or don’t. Your proposition would be a development nightmare with its complexity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's somewhat defendable when youtube doesn't give you an option to pay for what you'd be "stealing". Overall i agree with you, but lets not pretend that Youtube doesn't feel exploitative in the corporate behavior here. Especially considering the data they're stealing from me, harvesting and selling, etc. Ie show me the ads i'm missing, and let me pay for the view. It would be what, $3|5|7/m or w/e in value?…
You're not just paying Youtube/Google for the ad, you're paying the content creators as well. You can always buy the music directly from artists if you don't like Spotify's revenue model. Or ditch Spotify and use the free Youtube Music subscription you get with premium, maybe combined it'd be worth the $14 to you.
That would only be true if Youtube proportionally split my subscription to the videos i watch.
If anything, i'm advocating for exactly what you said - more than Youtube is. Ie show me how much i owe, and then whatever money i give youtube goes to content creators and the service provider. It's proportional to the service i consume, and is ultimately fair.
Instead what we get is something (in my view) massively upcharged. Bundled with service(s) i don't use, and set at a price point that i suspect well exceeds my usage of the service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure pihole doesn't block YouTube ads, they seem to be served server side but I could be wrong
You're 100% correct. PiHole is a DNS adblocker so, essentially, it's only able to block whole domains. My understanding is Google puts YouTube ads behind the YouTube domain so if the PiHole blocked YouTube ads, it would block the entire YouTube website which defeats the purpose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said. Consider yourself a hero for fighting the good fight or somebody who’s convinced themselves they’re entitled to something they didn’t pay for. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
No one is convinced of that (well, in my thread at least), quit strawmaning. I want to pay for what i use. Definitely. I struggle to see how a few dozen videos in hosting fees and possible ad revenue accounts to $14/m. It's insulting, upcharged, loaded with data mining and obfuscated for extreme profit in my assumption. If they want to use ads as a justification for paying, great - show me how much i owe. How me how…
Lol. You want to pay what you want to pay.
> show me how much i owe
It’s not complicated. $13.99 for a subscription to YouTube Premium in the US.
https://www.investopedia.com/youtube-premium-now-costs-usd2-...
Do you go to the grocery store and say, “Show me the baker’s salary as well as what the wheat, yeast, salt, and water cost and I’ll pay that happily?” No, you pay what they charge for bread or you don’t buy bread or you steal the bread.
And remember that YouTube Premium includes other benefits like downloading videos: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6308116?hl=en so it’s not a 1:1 exchange of the money they’d make from ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regardless, YouTube Premium puts way more money in creators' pockets than ads and is more reliable.
If that is so, YouTube should incentivize creators to promote YouTube premium instead of them having to advertise for dubious VPN services.
Maybe it's just A/B testing, but I got the "3 strikes and no more video playback" thing, which this DOM element blocking doesn't work around it seems :( After years of procrastinating, I'm finally gonna get around to setting up a basic homelab to run pihole. Thanks, youtube execs and bean counters, for kicking my lazy ass into gear on this! In a way, I kinda wish that ads worked as well as youtube suggestions. If one…
Mate if you get so much value from YouTube that you'll jump through these hoops just to use it without ads, why not just subscribe to premium? Personally it's by far my most bang-for-buck service.