[ptero]

> YouTube doesn't owe anyone a free experience.

Then they should not advertise it as such. I have not looked at youtube ads for a while, but earlier it was definitely advertising "host your videos free, let your friends watch them free from anywhere in the world, yada yada".

If one advertises "absolutely free email hosting" but means "we will read your email, analyze your behavior and sell your information to those who can effectively hound you with ads", people should push back. And "it isn't free to run" is not a valid defense.

> They could lock the entire site behind a paywall to paid subscribers only tomorrow

Sure they can. But that would likely drive most customers away and be a very bad business decision. My 2c.

[ponker]

Anyone should understand that every product has a business model, and if it's being given to you for free the company is going to be making money in some other way. I do support the company having to clearly disclose, on their home page or similar, the specific ways they make money.

[CydeWeys]

Obviously if they put it all behind a paywall then they would stop advertising it as free. My point is that it's their right to do so if that's their wont, not that it would necessarily be the best business decision.

> If one advertises "absolutely free email hosting" but means "we will read your email, analyze your behavior and sell your information to those who can effectively hound you with ads", people should push back. And "it isn't free to run" is not a valid defense.

Show me a single freemium service anywhere that advertises itself using such exaggerated language.

I don't understand why people complain about free services like this. You can't eat your cake and have it too. Choose if you want the ad-supported free service or the paid service and then quit complaining about the choice you've made. You're not ever gonna get an ad-free free service that offers all the same features as the paid service. That would be corporate malpractice of the highest order; they'd have $0 revenue!

[Dylan16807]

> My point is that it's their right to do so if that's their wont

Nobody has suggested otherwise, so why do you keep hammering on this point?

> I don't understand why people complain about free services like this.

Free services are not immune to criticism.

If someone is suggesting an unrealistic business model, that's one thing. If they just say a feature is bad, there's no need to argue with them. They are not obligated to "quit complaining"!

[CydeWeys]

I'm tired of people whinging all the time about freemium payment models. It's bringing the quality of discourse down. If you don't have any sort of realistic alternative and you're just complaining about not getting a service for free and without ads, save all of us some time and just don't bother complaining. It's tiresome.