[iLoveOncall]

> To be fair, YT Premium is one of the few subscriptions I think is a no-brainer and good value for money.

I cannot think of any subscription that offers literally no upside beside what a free browser extension that you install in 1 click already provides.

Youtube Premium is literally the worst value for money that I can think of, because I can get effortlessly the same for 0 cost.

[joshmanders]

In Google/YouTube's defense, this mentality is why we can't have nice things. You think it's cheap to host the content YouTube does? Paying for premium to remove ads is a way of saying "Thank you for providing me this service, instead of displaying me irrelevant ads, just take my money"

[lkbm]

It's also worth noting that creators get paid more for YT Premium views than ad-based views. YouTube, for all its problems, has far better revenue-sharing than pretty much any other "user generate content" platform.

[SantalBlush]

>You think it's cheap to host the content YouTube does?

These discussions always include bad-faith arguments about offsetting costs.

The purpose of ads on websites like YouTube is not just to offset costs, it is to maximize profits. The distinction is important; it means Google doesn't stop showing you ads once they've paid their bills, so please stop framing it this way. They will show you as many ads as they can before it starts to hurt their bottom line. They are not serving videos to be nice.

[gaius_baltar]

Also, don't expect Google to keep the "no ads" policy to YT Premium for long. They can still make people pay for "less ads", as twitter does.

Just remember cable TV on the old times.

[lkbm]

This is what we want, though, right? The alternatives would be a paywall, or charge per view. (Or, I guess, pay to "own", like a Kindle ebook, but seems like a mismatch for most of their content.)

[j-bos]

This strikes me as eating the commons.

[stOneskull]

you do get youtube music included which is a decent alternative to spotify.

[raincole]

By this logic, buying e-books from Amazon is the worst value I can think of, because I can get them effortlessly from libgen and other "sources", and a single book can cost as much as the whole year of YouTube premium.

[RobotToaster]

Considering Amazon can literally just erase e-books that you supposedly "own", like they literally did with 1984[0], very much yes.

[0] https://gizmodo.com/amazon-secretly-removes-1984-from-the-ki...

[raincole]

If you truly believe this (which I don't agree with), at least you're consistent. But I feel "adblock good, piracy bad" is a double standard that many people hold.

Practically, I think adblocker is even slightly worse than piracy. At least when you download a cracked game via a torrent, you don't cost Steam any money.

[iLoveOncall]

You are comparing something perfectly legal with something absolutely illegal, this makes no sense.

[raincole]

Except ad-blocker is literally just stealing bandwidth. Just because it's legal (under the current law), it doesn't mean it's morally right. Why should Youtube or any hosting service serves a user when they refuses to view the ads? YouTube is not a public service.

[iLoveOncall]

Ah! Well guess what? Showing me ads that I did not request is stealing MY bandwidth. And much worse than that, it's stealing my time.

[raincole]

Yes, this is why YouTube should just refuse to serve you and other adblocker users. This way it can no longer steal your time, and it's the only fair solution.

[SantalBlush]

It is morally right, not because it is legal, but because I was never asked to make a market transaction for the content. By your reasoning, it would be theft to close your eyes during a TV commercial. I completely reject your line of reasoning.

[reportgunner]

But it is.