Susan Wojcicki has died • Hacker News Board

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#441

Post by xanderlewis » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 9:51 PM UTC

mewpmewp2 wrote: post #289

xanderlewis wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of YouTubers have been very critical of YouTube’s approach to things and treatment of creators in the past. Also, just as an example, YouTube demonetises (and therefore effectively punishes) you for using words like ‘suicide’ so now we have to say silly things like ‘unalive’ — at least until Google/the advertisers catch on. These days YouTube is more censored than traditional TV.

Demonetisation is not the same as censoring though.

No — it’s not quite the same. But if you systematically demonetise any content you don’t like, in the long term it does amount to a form of censorship.

It’s as if a government said ‘we’ll tax you 1000% if you criticise us on social media’. You’d still get some bozos online saying ‘it’s not censorship; people are free to speak’ because you’re not directly prevented from speaking. But you can imagine the effect it would have.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#442

Post by cpncrunch » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 9:56 PM UTC

melling wrote: post #437

cpncrunch wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oslo is about half the UV of SF, so you would need to spend half as much time in the sun for the same benefit. If you are not outside much during the day, its still a risk factor no matter where you live. This would apply to most office workers.

“ Research on a link between vitamin D and cancer is mixed. Some studies have shown a link between low vitamin D levels in the body and a higher risk of getting cancer or dying from cancer. However, it’s not clear if taking vitamin D or having certain vitamin D levels might help prevent cancer. It’s also not clear if vitamin D can help control the growth and spread of cancer. More research is needed to know what role…

Yes indeed, it is sunlight that has the most evidence. Sun also releases nitric oxide in the skin, which reduces blood pressure, and high bp is associated with increased lung cancer hazard ratio, even for nonsmokers.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12936899/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-13399-4

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#443

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 9:57 PM UTC

lchengify wrote: post #73

Was shocked to hear this news. I worked for Google years ago but I was in the NYC office, so we didn't run into the YouTube folks much. Opinions about YouTube may be mixed here on HN, but it is objectively one of the most successful businesses in tech or media to emerge in the past 15 years. If it weren't buried inside Alphabet, Youtube would be worth on the order of $400 billion, more than Disney and Comcast combine…

I'll preface this with the most important part that cancer sucks and I wish it not even on my worst enemies. I hope Susan's family can find some peace.

>but it is objectively one of the most successful businesses in tech or media to emerge in the past 15 years. If it weren't buried inside Alphabet, Youtube would be worth on the order of $400 billion, more than Disney and Comcast combined.

it's very weird because "successful" doesn't mean "makes the most profit" here. It's undoubedtly a huge and challenging infrastructure to manage, but it apparently took Google over a decade to start being profitable. I don't know if that's some hollywood accounting or commodification to ads, but in many ways I feel like YT outspent the rest of the competition and in some ways stifled more efficient ways to deliver video content.

I feel a bit bad because it's clear YT has been turning the script for some time, and while Susan took a lot of that blame these wheels were turning long before she became CEO (and turn long after she stepped down). But that just shows why monopolies are bad. I do hope something better for creators takes over eventually.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#444

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:00 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #439

dotnet00 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has very much been resting on its laurels, they were innovative 20 years ago when they started. For the past decade or so they have mostly just rested on their laurels allowing the auto-moderation to rampage and destroy people's livelihoods. They've been way behind on adding standard features that their competitors see lots of benefit from. For example, YouTube was years late to the 'channel memberships' game…

It's still for me much more useable than the competitors. There have been quite a lot of features added in the 20 years - being able to choosse the viewing quality, variable playback speed, rapid transcription for subtitles, live video where if you join late you can start from the begining at 2x till it catches up. I still interenally curse if I'm made to watch video on a non youtube player as there's usually somethi…

Even if the tech was better, the network effect has long taken place. Content creators get paid, and a few get paid enough to do it full time. They can't just jump to another platform and expect to maintain that, and without that the fans won't migrate either.

Mixer is one of the best examples of this. MSFT paid hundreds of millions for exclusivity for some of the most popular streamers and people complimented how it felt much smoother than Twitch. But that wasn't enough to get off the ground for MS. Youtube is an even bigger behemoth to tackle.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#445

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:04 PM UTC

dylan604 wrote: post #338

dotnet00 wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube has very much been resting on its laurels, they were innovative 20 years ago when they started. For the past decade or so they have mostly just rested on their laurels allowing the auto-moderation to rampage and destroy people's livelihoods. They've been way behind on adding standard features that their competitors see lots of benefit from. For example, YouTube was years late to the 'channel memberships' game…

I've often wondered why YT hasn't released a subscription fee or donate type button where they could easily take a small nominal processing fee while removing the friction of forcing use of 3rd party services. Is liability from that kind of money movement too much for them to care with all of the much less risky money they are making?

As others said they have both now. Main issue is the same with any other kind of charity: most people won't do it so it's a neglible factor without incentive (which makes it cease to be a donation in my eyes).

But youtube's main services are free, so that's harder to pull off compared to stuff like Patreon. Offering exclusive videos probably doesn't outpace the ad revenue from "free" videos either (and if we're being frank, you're still bound to YT's rules. So you can't offer truly "extra" content free from censorship or copyright or whatnot.)

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#446

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:08 PM UTC

Physkal wrote: post #242

nnf wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure what you mean about the UI, but I pay for YouTube Premium exclusively so I don’t have to see ads, and for that purpose alone, to me it’s worth it.

Why not just use an ad blocker?

2 factors:

1. less annoying for non-desktop devices. Especially when casting content onto my TV

2. moral niceties: Premium viewers apparently help give more revenue to content creators, and I tend to watch smaller channels. It's nice knowing I can disproportionately help those kinds of creators out.

Also, apparently Google is in the middle of its latest clash with adblocking so even that can get unreliable.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#447

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

cnasc wrote: post #288

Jensson wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not pay for a product you use instead of being a leech? It is perfectly fine if you wanna leech, but understand not everyone wanna do that.

Not looking at an advertisement is not “being a leech.” I glance away from billboards, I refill my drink during commercial breaks, I show up when the movie starts instead of when the preview starts. These are normal behaviors, not leech behaviors. The ads are not very sophisticated, so I don’t need sophisticated measures to avoid them. On the web, the ads have ratcheted up the intensity (tracking, targeting) with tec…

This is an extreme comparison, but there's more action in avoiding ads with an adblocker than by passively averting your gaze in physical media. It'd be more like if you chopped down billboards, installed a jammer into your router to deliver phone stats to tv ads, and blaring noises before the movie starts.

I don't think it's that extreme, but it's always hard making comparisons between physical and digital.

>You have framed this as a contrast between leeches and normal people, but this is actually a contrast between normal people and bootlickers.

I prefer the framing that doesn't chastise those who are simply ignorant or have their own morals. I recognize adblock is technically "theft" so I don't want to go on a high horse insult the "normal people".

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#448

Post by trhway » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:13 PM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #391

trhway wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US is a standout in obesity - only Arab countries and Native Pacific are close to it where obesity has different character than in US. And may be the obesity and cancer has the same cause - high processed sugar diet for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States#/... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.16.24302894v... "The United States (U.S.) is the leading country in ultra-proce…

It doesn't pass the smell test. In 1990, US was 18.7% obese with a cancer incidence of 1,760, UK and Australia at 780. Most recent is 2016 showing Australia and UK at 30% obesity, yet their cancer incidence is lower than ever at 750 and 682, respectively. Everyone but the US (and Poland) are increasing their obesity while their cancer incidence is flat or decreasing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults…

Something fishy with the data there as here

https://www.wcrf.org/cancer-trends/global-cancer-data-by-cou....

age standartized rate:

USA - 367 UK - 307 Australia - 462

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#449

Post by dylan604 » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:18 PM UTC

johnnyanmac wrote: post #445

dylan604 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wondered why YT hasn't released a subscription fee or donate type button where they could easily take a small nominal processing fee while removing the friction of forcing use of 3rd party services. Is liability from that kind of money movement too much for them to care with all of the much less risky money they are making?

As others said they have both now. Main issue is the same with any other kind of charity: most people won't do it so it's a neglible factor without incentive (which makes it cease to be a donation in my eyes). But youtube's main services are free, so that's harder to pull off compared to stuff like Patreon. Offering exclusive videos probably doesn't outpace the ad revenue from "free" videos either (and if we're being…

You're allowed to have content with unpublished links or not discoverable by search. I guess you could publish that content via email to sponsors that could obviously be forwarded, but that would be such a small number. I'm not familiar with peculiarities of subscription to channels as I never browse logged in, but do they not allow for videos to be visible only to subscribed users? Seems like that would be simple enough to do.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#450

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 10, 2024, 10:27 PM UTC

talldayo wrote: post #378

sulam wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I pick up trash off the floor that I didn’t put there? Why do I tip for good service? Why do I bother responding to posts like this? The answer is the same to all these questions: because I’d rather not live in a world where everyone is a taker.

You're not picking up trash. You're paying for trash and encouraging the ad-littering business by even acknowledging it exists. If you consider advertising bad enough to pay money to get rid of it, why would you pay that money to the business putting up ads? Because you refuse to leave their client? Because you don't want to acknowledge the scary world of choosing something better? I see a lot of people say this, whe…

> You're paying for trash and encouraging the ad-littering business by even acknowledging it exists.

This feels like a "you participate in society" argument. Yes, it'd be better if all intrusive ads were banned or heavily regulated. But that's not reality and I can't simply withdraw from the internet in protest.

>If you consider advertising bad enough to pay money to get rid of it, why would you pay that money to the business putting up ads?

it's a calculus of "energy spent" from fighting vs value gained from "giving in". There's fortuntaely more value than "remove ads" so that's how I justify it.

>Because you refuse to leave their client?

because I can't leave the client. I've been de-googling for the past year or so and I realize the main two things I can't leave are

1. Youtube, because it basically has a monopoly on video content.

2. gmail, mostly because there'd be a huge burden ediing almost 20 years of accounts all through the web to leave. From random sites I visit once in a blue moon to my banks and bills. I'd have gmail haunting me for years even if I dropped it today.

If there's one thing that has a reckoning coming, it's Youtube.

>Because you don't want to acknowledge the scary world of choosing something better?

I do it all the time. There is always friction so I think it's a bit dishonest to phrase it as "choosing something better". Firefox still has quirks with translation and the occasional weird interaction with factors like video calls, even after days of researching tweaking settings and installing extensions. Picking up PC gaming still has tons of configuration issues and hardware considerations compared to popping in a disc into a console. There's simply a lot of intersting information I miss out on from not browsing reddit, things that the other 3 forum social media (including HN) just don't catch. It's never objectively better.

>reflect on what you're paying for and how these companies sucker you into buying it.

I suppose you can criticism any bill with that logic. Water is a natural resource, why am I paying for plumbing? video games are just code, all code should be free, why pay for video games? Why am I paying $100 for this art commission when someone in Venezuela would do it for a dime (disclaimer: this is probably a very wrong conversion)?

Some of these are societal (we're never going to escape taxes, some of these should hopefully be so you can support other workers instead of exploiting them. It's your call either way, but I won't fault someone (especially someone decently off) for choosing convinience of entertainment over some grand stand against "the free market".