81–90 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, maybe, don't advertise it as free.
YouTube is not advertised as free, at least nowhere I could find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're considered to be isolated services. You can have a gmail account without having a youtube account.
Not entirely true. Take the recent controversy around YouTuber Markiplier having users' accounts shut down (including both YouTube and Gmail) for spamming his YouTube livestream chatroom.[1] I also did a quick search and it's been a while since both Gmail/Google accounts and YouTube accounts are tied to one another.[2][3] [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/markiplier-youtube-fans-heis... [2] https://webapps.stackexc…
This might be actually a good thing. Say that you are a user, which uploads a LOT of large videos that almost nobody is watching, apart from your small cabal, and you restrict ads on them (AFAIK was possible in past, not sure if it is now). In such case, you get quite good service for free, and you cost YouTube quite a lot of money for storage. I see that YouTube have following options: 1.) Show more ads elsewhere (s…
Vs other replies, seems it's intended more toward genuinely wasteful content, like "10 hours of stupid on repeat".
> 7 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21502162 > 14 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21500325
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue that YouTube is a for-profit business. They have every right, within legal bounds, to do whatever makes economic sense to them. If you want an archive, go with archive.org. But even then, nothing is free. If somebody thinks a footage deserves to be archived and preserved, somebody needs to pay for the cost anyhow, e.g. via donations.
As a user I am not interested in YT's profits. However, what I am interested in is being able to access useful content. For all intents and purposes, YT has become the central place for people to upload such footage and of course the prospect of its removal is worrying to me. There are vast amounts of indispensable knowledge and information uploaded to YT that is far from being deemed as profitable to Google and as s…
Choose two: a) free* b) reliable c) universal
* not counting ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This doesn't make sense. Anyone can watch YouTube without an account. So even if they terminated a consumer using adblocking it wouldn't change anything for Google. there are means to identify (and block) unique users without them needing to have an account. Heck, there's even means to identify the usage of an ad-blocker and/or youtube-dl and to refuse to provide the video for such cases.
I see the point but that's a cat and mouse game. Google would invest far more resources to block those users than it was worth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this a good thing? Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT.
> Obscure and/or old archive footage which usually doesnt get that many views is one of the best things about YT. and one of the costs youtube bears, since by definition they can't make money off those videos, but has to pay for storage. I dont know if there's a solution - perhaps non-commercialized accounts can't upload more than X gigabytes of vidoes, or be forced to have ads? Or you (the channel owner) pay for the…
Sure they can make money off them - they just need to be creative. For example, you can have a category of 'archived videos' to which you need to pay to be able to access. The payment is for the service, not for the video so it does not matter what are the specific settings on a specific video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't watched an ad on youtube in like ten years. They are probably very upset at me.
Unfortunately I watch YouTube on a smart TV. I have no way of blocking their adverts. I can only wait for skip button and skip.