|
|
|
|
|
|
by pb7
1035 days ago
|
|
|
Just because you got something for free at the start doesn't mean it will stay that way. Other platforms like Netflix, HBO, Hulu, etc keep increasing prices year after year, even creating paid ad-supported tiers, and since most people pay YouTube by watching ads, ads are increasing commensurately too. Where's the confusion? The "refusal" refers to there being options where you don't have to see ads. I don't get to watch Netflix for free with ads; how is that better? |
|
|
Youtube contains endless "generative fill" content made with all the care and effort of a vending machine. Lifeless, worthless, rinse/repeat content made by content spammers. A slap in the face in terms of value for money.
On Youtube's homepage recently I saw this video: "5 Tallest Building Demolitions in History". Worth a look, right? Wrong. Narrated with an artificial voice, and containing about 11 minutes of stock video clips, padding things out to reach the 12 minute length. The few seconds of demolition footage is fleeting and extremely low quality because the uploader doesn't own the footage.
Netflix isn't infected with such blatantly empty clickbait rubbish, so is a poor comparison if you're tying to say "but you pay $15 a month for Netflix, why not Youtube"?
While Youtube provides a "tip jar" called "super thanks", Google takes a 30% cut of whatever is tipped to the creator, ON TOP of what they take from advertising and premium fees. Google takes and takes. They increase ads as if there's no limit. Do you think advertising should have limits? Or are you fine with YouTube becoming wall to wall repetitive intrusive ads unless people pay the protection fee to not suffer the onslaught?