YouTube

My individual Premium membership is $9.99/month. There's a family plan for $17.99/mo that lets up to 5 family members in the same household also get ad-free and so forth, but I haven't done that yet. I signed up quite a while ago, so maybe I got in on an early deal, but I don't think so.

Anyway, pretty sure the tax bill to support a universal government-sponsored video streaming platform would be more than that, so the "can't afford it" claim is kind of risible. If that's genuinely true, and I'm not saying it isn't, then watching some ads is the least you can do.

That's a problem with advertising in general. It's not like there's any advantage to advertising things you already want to you. That's a waste of everyone's time. The point of it is to entice you to buy things. That you find that annoying is reasonable, but there is no alternative.

Running Adblock on YouTube is essentially telling the creators of the videos you watch that they don't deserve any income from your views.

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 21st 2020 at 8:19:35 AM

TBF, I'm sure my situation would also not result in my taxes being raised if such a bill were even remotely in the question.

That said, I don't even think 90% of the videos I watch are monetizable anyway.

Edited by ShinyCottonCandy on Nov 21st 2020 at 8:22:01 AM

Well in that situation I'd think that letting some advertisers yak on for a bit about things you already know you won't buy so that the creators of the videos you watch can earn a living would be a pretty decent thing to do. At least it would be honest.

As for "monetizable", that's a completely different conversation. Jim Sterling doesn't monetize his videos because he's entirely Patreon supported, but he's been getting copyright claims against the licensed music that he paid for and those claimants have been running ads on his videos. To me that's far worse than YouTube doing it. Anyway, I never see those since I have Premium, so...

Edited by Fighteer on Nov 21st 2020 at 8:24:17 AM

Sadly advertisement is always a carpet-bombing strategy and not even a miracle could make it otherwise. But when I use adblockers on Youtube, my statement is more that views should not be for sale, rather than a personal jab at any particular Youtuber and denying them money out of spite. I still have trouble wrapping my mind around views equating to revenue to begin with. Jim Sterling's views on the whole issue are basically mine, although what you've mentioned and Youtube's incoming policies put that mentality at risk. I don't know if there's any technical legal issues, but there's got to be something wrong with putting ads on videos without permission. It could raise serious Unfortunate Implications for those few channels who want to remain ad-free, like saying something controversial at the end of a video for that sole purpose.

Besides, I also watch on mobile, where ad-blockers aren't an option. I'd say that's enough tippage from me.

Edited by RainingMetal on Nov 21st 2020 at 8:37:45 AM

The problem is that you think that views shouldn't be worth money. Even if the creators of the videos see no value at all, that's bandwidth that is being streamed to you across lines that someone paid for, from files hosted on servers that someone paid for, being managed and run by software that someone is paid to develop, and so on.

There ain't no free lunch. Those costs are borne by someone, and no business is going to bear them out of the goodness of its heart.

We can have a whole (pointless) dialog about whether digital distribution should be charged for and whether artists should work because they love art or because they're getting paid, but that's a windmill that you can tilt at until you're bruised from head to toe without changing anything.

I don't like ads either, personally, but I recognize it's unrealistic for many channels to keep producing content as something other than a hobby without some form of revenue.

It's a Morton's Fork: Those who stay ad-free tend to have Schedule Slip and lower production values, whole those who sign up give you content on a regular basis...at the cost of commercialization. I did say it was a Monkey's Paw. One big issue is that I tend to rewatch some videos, so it's already bad enough when I run into parts I want to skip. And in some cases (ie watching on a mobile device), I've already played the advertisement song and dance. I'd consider my views on a mobile device enough to chip in.

Edited by RainingMetal on Nov 21st 2020 at 9:17:18 AM

So far the ads got annoying when I watch people play Among Us and I keep thinking the round ended when it just an ad popping up.

I deal with it by avoiding streamers who run midroll ads, except for a couple streamers who actually plan out their midrolls the same way TV channels do, thus causing no real disruption.

You think Fighteer gets paid for the shit he deals with on this site? That’s funny, I’m half convinced he’s doing it as penance for some crimes.

Why? It’s simply being a one-man-band actor-producer-editor for a TV show, are those not valid careers?

Remember that prices with vary from country to country, it be affordable in the US doesn’t mean it’s affordable everywhere.

Oh and now we’ve got an actual “I want stuff for free!” argument being made, do you see how my earlier argument wasn’t that and you were strawmannirg it by insisting that it was?

YouTubers have been a thing for at least a decade now, I'd have hoped we were passed the whole "this isn't a real job!" nonsense.

The amount of effort that goes into producing videos on a regular basis is astonishing. Anyone that goes "this isn't a real job!" would be in for a rude awakening if they tried it themselves.

The question isn’t "is this a real job" but "can you make a living out of Youtube’s ad revenue alone". For most creators, the answer is clearly no.

No, your argument was that you hate midroll ads and so YT putting them in videos is a human rights violation, or at least justification to run an adblocker. Whatever.

Until someone comes up with a better funding model, ads in videos are going to stay.

Most, if ot not all, of the YouTuber who actually do this as a full-time job have pretty much moved on to alternative funding methods like Patreon because YouTube's repeatedely and consistently slashed ad revenue over the years.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Nov 22nd 2020 at 5:07:19 PM

I always figure that it's better for higher-budget Youtubers to consider their works more of a passion project that can yield revenue alongside a more higher-paying career. The figures certainly seem to encourage this.

Regardless, I'm sticking to my belief that Patreon and other more direct means of donating to creators is the better means of giving them their necessary resources, even if it means paying more than hocking up for Youtube Premium, because that funding will go more towards the creators and less towards Youtube's increasingly grabby practices. And I highly doubt Youtube's on thin financial ice given that they've been paired up with Google.

Edited by RainingMetal on Nov 22nd 2020 at 11:10:24 AM

They already have Paywall and Patreon. Hell, they even advertise products in their videos. Aren't these alternatives?

Those alternative funding sources: patronage, sponsorships, and merchandise are necessary largely because YT's revenue-sharing model is so inconsistent, but part of the underlying blame for that can be placed on people who use ad blockers. There's a chicken-and-egg problem. People don't like ads so they block them, ad providers find ever more intrusive ways to insert them, more people block them, and so on.

Creators are caught in the middle. Nobody likes having to run ads, but they have no choice if they want to be able to earn a living from their work — or in the case of sites like TV Tropes, to keep it existing at all.

Also, while YT has deep pockets behind it, Google is under no obligation to continue running it if it doesn't make money. It's a business, not a charity.

And that justifies cutting ad revenue? I'm not sure how that tracks. "We have to be more intrusive with our ads, so we'll have creators earn less money from them." Don't make much sense to me.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Nov 22nd 2020 at 1:19:10 PM

I think the message is that due to ads being blocked, less revenue is being made as a result, hence why ads need to be more obnoxious.

Well, it looks like now not only are they getting rid of comments on kid's videos, but you can't even favorite them! This sucks!

I think they already did that once COPPA was implemented. At least you can still "like" videos.

Please, point me to where I called anything a human rights violation or tried to justify Adblock. You’re just making shit up at this point.

Which raises the other issue with alternative funding sources, You Tube doesn’t get a cut, and You Tube does actually deserve a cut, because it’s paying for the content by providing servers and bandwidth.

I wouldn’t be surprised if You Tube made the recent changes in part because of the growth of Patreon, because they (not unreasonably) want their cut and won’t get it if creators run add free videos and just use Patreon. I still stand that creators should have a way to give You Tube its cut of the Patreon money and thus remove the ads, so that viewers can get the ad free experience.

A little bit off topic but seems like Belle Delphine got terminated by youtube. Thats the second big name this year that youtube took down.

They are not messing around

Did she do anything besides being a bad content creator?

Deserves a cut for what? The listing algorithm that can screw with creators' visibility? Or the one that apparently can't recgonise hate speech, but removes history documentaries on the regular? Their copyright claim system? Or maybe the constant revenue cuts that made creators switch to alternative platforms in the first place.

But sure, let's pity the poor megacorp for not getting to milk the people it regularly screws over some more.

Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Nov 22nd 2020 at 12:24:10 PM

x2 She apparently violated the TOS due to overtly sexual content and/or possible nudity.

Edited by Karxrida on Nov 22nd 2020 at 3:54:35 AM