Am I the only one perfectly fine with that option?
Like…shit costs money. Somebody has to pay for it. Ultimately it’s going to be advertisers, creators, or users. A company can’t be comelled to offer a service at a loss without compensation indefinitely.
The big change I want to see is for payment to remove not only ads, but tracking as well.
I already pay not to have ads. I’ll pay extra if it means they don’t collect my data.
The concept that the internet doesn’t cost money harkens back to the days when the only people who were hosting content were community driven enthusiasts. The fact that “shit costs money” is even an argument here is a symptom of the greater problem that corporatism has invaded a community space for profit.
I guess you can argue that corporatism has made the internet more accessible, to a degree. Really corporatism has only increased the exposure of a handful of social media sites. But that doesn’t really change what their goal is, which is to squeeze money out of people trying to socialize.
Now that they have invaded what was once a space for enthusiasts and tech minds, made it into a people trap and scape money off the backend with metadata, the idea that they’re now asking people directly for money that they can no longer make due to their government protecting them is grotesque and an absurd direction for services like these to go in.
Don’t pretend like Facebook, youtube, et al don’t make enough money hand over foot to just to cover their operating costs already. They’re asking for money for profit. Billion dollar companies are now asking directly for profit because they can’t extort a newly formed protection.
I suppose selling a better experience is one thing. There’s legitimacy in that. Although selling a reprieve from a bad experience that you created (youtube) is a bit like creating a problem to sell the solution, which is still fucked.
The days before YouTube there wasn’t free HD video hosting. We had things like Newgrounds which were way, way worse when it comes to ads and the videos were like 240p.
But it was mostly flash sites back then because video costs a ludicrous amount of money to host, and it was way worse then.
YouTube absolutely will not make money without either ads or fees.
Some governments are doing the right thing by giving people control over their information and how it’s shared online, yes. And that does directly affect YouTube’s profitability.
So now YouTube is being forced to offer users a choice in how they pay. That payment can take the form of cash or private information.
In the days before YouTube we were still working on a unified video player in browsers and internet speeds capable of handling videos. Also, think about how YouTube was before Google bought it. That was them making a modest amount of money to keep the lights on.
You know what has happened since then? Bought by a billion dollar company to make profit. That’s the point
I suppose you’re going to argue that other video hosting sites that are an objectively better experience than youtube can’t last? Or that youtube is better now that it’s owned by someone else?
The point is that online sites that are around to make profit are actively sapping online communities. It’s what’s happening to reddit as well.
Ok, and I’m saying that a platform can make money without causing a privacy crisis that requires a government to step in. Plenty do.
I’m saying that the thing that makes sites more bloated and unpleasant is when they get retooled to squeeze every last drop of profit from their users.
We don’t have to turn this disagreement into “sites need to make money” vs “everything should be free”. There’s a middle ground, in which my original point sits.
Am I the only one perfectly fine with that option?
Like…shit costs money. Somebody has to pay for it. Ultimately it’s going to be advertisers, creators, or users. A company can’t be comelled to offer a service at a loss without compensation indefinitely.
The big change I want to see is for payment to remove not only ads, but tracking as well.
I already pay not to have ads. I’ll pay extra if it means they don’t collect my data.
The concept that the internet doesn’t cost money harkens back to the days when the only people who were hosting content were community driven enthusiasts. The fact that “shit costs money” is even an argument here is a symptom of the greater problem that corporatism has invaded a community space for profit.
I guess you can argue that corporatism has made the internet more accessible, to a degree. Really corporatism has only increased the exposure of a handful of social media sites. But that doesn’t really change what their goal is, which is to squeeze money out of people trying to socialize.
Now that they have invaded what was once a space for enthusiasts and tech minds, made it into a people trap and scape money off the backend with metadata, the idea that they’re now asking people directly for money that they can no longer make due to their government protecting them is grotesque and an absurd direction for services like these to go in.
Don’t pretend like Facebook, youtube, et al don’t make enough money hand over foot to just to cover their operating costs already. They’re asking for money for profit. Billion dollar companies are now asking directly for profit because they can’t extort a newly formed protection.
I suppose selling a better experience is one thing. There’s legitimacy in that. Although selling a reprieve from a bad experience that you created (youtube) is a bit like creating a problem to sell the solution, which is still fucked.
The days before YouTube there wasn’t free HD video hosting. We had things like Newgrounds which were way, way worse when it comes to ads and the videos were like 240p.
But it was mostly flash sites back then because video costs a ludicrous amount of money to host, and it was way worse then.
YouTube absolutely will not make money without either ads or fees.
Some governments are doing the right thing by giving people control over their information and how it’s shared online, yes. And that does directly affect YouTube’s profitability.
So now YouTube is being forced to offer users a choice in how they pay. That payment can take the form of cash or private information.
In the days before YouTube we were still working on a unified video player in browsers and internet speeds capable of handling videos. Also, think about how YouTube was before Google bought it. That was them making a modest amount of money to keep the lights on.
You know what has happened since then? Bought by a billion dollar company to make profit. That’s the point
YouTube was hemorrhaging money. They were just trying to hold on long enough to find a buyer.
I suppose you’re going to argue that other video hosting sites that are an objectively better experience than youtube can’t last? Or that youtube is better now that it’s owned by someone else?
The point is that online sites that are around to make profit are actively sapping online communities. It’s what’s happening to reddit as well.
I’m saying that any platform has to be financially viable. Bandwidth and servers cost money.
Name a platform that allows essentially unlimited uploads and hosting of HD video, doesn’t have ads, is free for all users, and isn’t losing money.
Ok, and I’m saying that a platform can make money without causing a privacy crisis that requires a government to step in. Plenty do.
I’m saying that the thing that makes sites more bloated and unpleasant is when they get retooled to squeeze every last drop of profit from their users.
We don’t have to turn this disagreement into “sites need to make money” vs “everything should be free”. There’s a middle ground, in which my original point sits.