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

Susan Wojcicki has died

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 523 posts

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#491

Post by talldayo »

askafriend wrote: post #459
talldayo wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I'm even considering getting YouTube Premium Why? Serious question, too. You can sideload clients that give you every single feature of YouTube Premium for free. Unless you're expressly lazy, like being taken advantage of or enjoy watching advertisements, there's really no excuse. YouTube Premium is the "I'm trapped in this place and you people have finally gotten me" fee - you can circument it all together by…

My reasons are: it's a great product, it's very convenient, it's the service I watch the most content on, part of the money goes to creators and I'm not broke so I can afford it.

Then don't come whining to me when YouTube gets worse on your dime.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#492

Post by throw10920 »

fragmede wrote: post #401
cnasc wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a false dichotomy. Rationalize not paying for content with whatever logical contortions you can come up with, leeching content and not paying for it clearly isn't going to encourage the creation of additional content. Pay for it via Patreon or some other platform if you don't want to give money to Google, but the leech problem is why so many things suck. Even BitTorrent sites hate leeches.

I don't think the GP cares about false dichotomies:

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

This is not rational debate, but activism and emotional manipulation. Recommend flagging and not engaging.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#493

Post by hnburnsy »

shufflerofrocks wrote: post #482
hnburnsy wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't mind the ads on YT but this year the unskippable ads on TV platforms is abusivel, eg., a 20-30 seconds ad(s) for a 1.5 minute video. Ive seen unskippable breaks of up to 200 seconds with 5-8 advertisers in some long form YT vidoes. YT claims the breaks are less frequent but I dont beliveve it. That was it and I side loaded STN. I feel bad for content creators, but I let my favorite ones know about it.

I agree. That is quite painful and is obviously motivated to force people towards premium, which I highly disagree with. I think such actions should be regulated though I don't know if that can legally happen. >I feel bad for content creators, but I let my favorite ones know about it. Same. Sometimes I try to support my fav ones with a nominal patreon subscription whenever I discontinue my premium.

I dont think they want us to transition to Premium, they like that on smarttv platforms they can sell unskippable ads that are similar to cable/broadcast TV

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#494

Post by mewpmewp2 »

xanderlewis wrote: post #441
mewpmewp2 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 woul…

Yeah, but there is always going to be different incentives for different content. Some content will always pay more. It is up to the author which kind of content they want to create.

E.g. clickbait content might bring you more, but it doesn't mean the other type of content is censored.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#495

Post by angoragoats »

yyyfb wrote: post #258
tahoeskibum wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also useful to be able to download videos for offline viewing, e.g., on a plane or when internet is spotty.

Also for background playback on mobile

Background playback works fine on desktop for any video site (simply put the window in the background) and the fact that YouTube gates this feature behind a paywall is a prime example of enshittification. It makes me want to never give them a dime.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#496

Post by angoragoats »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #447
cnasc wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Ad blocking is not theft (in quotes or otherwise), because no one is being deprived of property they own.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#497

Post by msadirna »

least wrote: post #474
msadirna wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they didn't deserve the content, then people wouldn't upload their content to Youtube. It is every creator's prerogative to choose how they distribute their content and there's a reason many do so on Youtube. ...and the reason is: they were the first. Now they are so huge that you can't go past them. If you want to have your video seen, you HAVE to go to YouTube. It's not an argument for them. It's just a quasi…

> ...and the reason is: they were the first. Now they are so huge that you can't go past them. If you want to have your video seen, you HAVE to go to YouTube. I think you're understanding the value in the platform itself, then. It is pretty trivial for someone to share their video online but it's extremely difficult to get it to propagate. > There is no real choice. There is kind of a choice. You already added the pr…

People who upload their content to the open internet usually want to have it seen by others. So no...there is no real choice.

Also, suggesting that this "value" is something YouTube still delivers or creates, is ridiculous. It was luck and from then on the value is being provided by the people who upload content there. What they get in return is ridiculous compared to what YT generates financially. This is nothing to be proud of. It's your usual digital rip-off through privilege.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#498

Post by least »

msadirna wrote: post #497
least wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and the reason is: they were the first. Now they are so huge that you can't go past them. If you want to have your video seen, you HAVE to go to YouTube. I think you're understanding the value in the platform itself, then. It is pretty trivial for someone to share their video online but it's extremely difficult to get it to propagate. > There is no real choice. There is kind of a choice. You already added the pr…

People who upload their content to the open internet usually want to have it seen by others. So no...there is no real choice. Also, suggesting that this "value" is something YouTube still delivers or creates, is ridiculous. It was luck and from then on the value is being provided by the people who upload content there. What they get in return is ridiculous compared to what YT generates financially. This is nothing to…

> It was luck and from then on the value is being provided by the people who upload content there.

Content means absolutely fuck all if it can't reach its audience. Youtube hosts, encodes, streams, distributes, and circulates the content and has recommendation algorithms to increase the productivity of every public video published on the platform. It was lucky that it was a first mover and gained the momentum that it continues to enjoy from its massive user base, but a massive user base means fuck all if you can't deliver a product that they want to use... and Youtube as a platform means absolutely fuck all if people don't create and share videos.

If you want to argue that Youtube takes too much of a cut because of their position as a natural monopoly in the long form video content market, you might have a reasonable argument. To say that Youtube as a platform does not provide value to both its creators and its regular users is simply asinine.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#499

Post by ndriscoll »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #483
ndriscoll wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology is basically there for signage to track who looks at it (maybe not billboards, but that's a resolution thing). In any case, why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? If I don't run their script, they didn't "lose" anything. Their malware was never allowed to run on my machines in the first place. They failed to steal something from me.

Perhaps. It'd fall under another cost benefits analysis. I imagine it's not worth the cost. Software scales elegantly, unlike hardware, so it's another area where the metaphor breaks apart. >why would I care about how people who are trying to scam me set up their business deals? 1. Because you are spending much of your energy and time getting around them. Because by silent consensus people would rather consume ads th…

I spend almost no time getting around them. As you say, it takes 10 seconds to install a malware filter to block them.

There is no contract with me at all. It is not theft. It is preventing others from misappropriating my computing resources, and in fact the US government recommends citizens use ad blockers. It's basic computer security.

Re: Susan Wojcicki has died

#500

Post by johnnyanmac »

angoragoats wrote: post #496
johnnyanmac wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

Ad blocking is not theft (in quotes or otherwise), because no one is being deprived of property they own.

Property isn't the only thing that can be stolen.
Post reply on HN