• Squorlple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unsolicited ads are implicitly anti-user, especially when they impede or interrupt access to content.

    • King@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you buy youtube premium instead? Or are you an entitled freeloading POS who shamelessly asks for uninterrupted free content? 😂

        • King@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          There used to be a free youtube before google? Someone has to volunteer to pay for the site servers unless you pay them my ignorant bro. Youre always free to stop using the evil corporation sites but you want their stuff for free instead and complain about it. Get a grip

        • bemenaker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          How are they supposed to pay for the infrastructure that you’re using to watch it. Do you even have a clue what it costs to run YouTube for a month? The ads keep the servers up. BTW it’s in the tens of millions a month if not more to run YouTube.

            • filcuk@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Do you know the enormous amount of data it takes to stream video? And how much infrastructure to have such seamless loading as youtube does, caching copies of popular videos all across the world?

            • Jako301@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Requests cost nothing, data storage and bandwidth usage do.

              People upload over 500 hours of videos every minute, that’s 256.320.000hours each year. Let’s say that most of it is lower quality instead of 4K, so each hour takes 0.5GB of storage. That’s 128PB every year. Youtube overall size probably reached Exabytes in the last few years.

              Their daily bandwidth usage probably ranges way into Petabytes too, something you were orders of magnitude away over the whole life cycle of your site.

                • bemenaker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  And if you were streaming the volume of videos they are, your costs would be astronomical too. Your argument is completely senseless.

                  • Kedly@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    What he’s saying is there are alternative methods that cost less, theres a few youtube competitors that use p2p for instance, which’d cut down on hosting costs SIGNIFICANTLY

          • fosstulate@iusearchlinux.fyi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No one has a clue what it ‘costs’ because YT isn’t honest about revenue, and being a subsidiary its P&L statements can be adjusted to spread any narrative around profitability it considers useful. In the context of Alphabet its operating cost is probably negligible.

            You’re already paying them data tribute through daily interaction with much of the corporate web.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It was never free. It was paid for and used by universities and research institutions. There was no world wide web, just gopher, ftp, usenet, chat, telnet. Any kind of advertising was really frowned upon, it was basically treated like a library. But, there wasn’t a lot to do there.

      • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Where was this attitude when Netflix announced account sharing crackdowns? I buy premium to support the people I watch but still, what a wild comment.

        • King@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What does netflix not want acc sharing have to do with youtube needing money to host their content and pay their creators? Dont like their new policy dont buy it are u looking for something to be mad about? Tf

          • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because they’re both doing it for the exact same reason. Netflix doesn’t want people using their service for free and neither does Youtube. Netflix didn’t have ads so they cracked down on accounts. Youtube does, so they’re cracking down on adblockers.

            I was fine with Youtube locking their 4k+ resolutions behind premium but they’re slowly tightening their hand more and more to make it ‘profitable’. Hell, the queue feature is premium now. Using the app on your phone while it’s ‘locked’ is a premium feature. Things that should be free are being stuffed into the ‘premium’ package but because that wasn’t enough, they’re trying to block adblockers. Making people pay for what they were getting for free, while it makes sense from a business perspective, never goes over well. Premium is really only worth it if you want the people you watch it get paid more, everything else can be done by third party players.

            Although like Reddit, they might kill those off next.

            • King@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Should be free” ? You think only 4k videos cost them money? Bandwidth and storage for lower res is free? How naive jesus

              • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Lol yes because people are already developing third party apps with those same features for free, ya duncecap.

                Also if Youtube made their site “pay to access” we’d watch it die within the month.

                • King@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nice logic, movies can also be downloaded for free via “third party”, does that mean studios should make them free because of that?

                  • RealFknNito@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Can’t download a movie theater which is where most of their money comes from. Streaming services definitely lose a lot of money and the only reason they can stay alive is in-house ‘recommendations’, high resolution/bandwidth streams, and compatibility with mobile devices. If third party sites/apps figure those three things out, will probably be tough to compete with.