[zeraholladay]

Think we agree that blocking ad blockers is in YouTube's immediate, short-term interest. However, I'm not sure it's in their long-term interest because it goes against the principle of reciprocation.

Regarding reciprocation, a lot of platforms offer a free tier and then offer additional features for paid subscribers. There's the principle of reciprocation at play: they give me something for free and that then makes me more likely to pay for additional features. But I'm only willing to pay for features, not to have an annoyance, like ads, removed. The conditions I'd have to agree to feel coerced ... like making an agreement with Darth Vader: "pray YouTube doesn't alter the deal further by now only blocking 50% of ads for a paid subscriber." What do I, as an end user, get out of this other than feeling hostile towards YouTube?

It's my computational device and my internet connection. I think there's a very complex argument to be made but this isn't the forum for it.

[carlosjobim]

Why aren't you hostile against your Internet service provider for charging you for access? Why do you accept paying the ISP to access YouTube, but not paying YouTube or video creators?

[zeraholladay]

I think with ISPs there's an obvious upfront material cost for building infrastructure. In that sense I'm very much the consumer. Obviously, there's substantial infra cost too with social media platforms like YouTube. However, the consumer-producer dichotomy isn't as clear with social media platforms since the user base is the product. That is, the value of a social media platform comes first from the masses of people using it and second the design, the infrastructure, etc. This is why I think reciprocity (in the psychological sense) is so important for social media companies because the product can just walk out the door.

My understanding is that content creators see very little or next to none of the ad revenue. The content creators are the reason people are using YouTube. So I prefer to support them through Patreon. Second, I've heard that the vast, vast majority of content creators make next to nothing through YouTube -- these content creators are paying the opportunity cost to "make it big" or simply enjoy making content or using YouTube as a promotional vehicle for other services. I'm not trying to define a moral equivalence of why it's right to directly support content creators but not YouTube (Google is making enough money off me so that I have a clear conscience), but for the price of their ad free service I'd like to see a more equitable distribution.

[carlosjobim]

You are mixing two completely different groups when talking about users. Some users make and publish content. YouTube and others are dependent on them. Some users consume content, and as the end consumer they are the people who have to pay if producers want to have an income. Either paying directly in money, or by suffering advertising.

It's not about the infrastructure cost of YouTube's servers, but the time and effort cost of the people producing the videos. Hackers seem to conveniently always forget about these people.

A pure consumer is not worth anything to YouTube or any other platform if they're not paying or can't be advertised to. They're just a cost with no benefit.

I think the argument for paying content makers (through YouTube) is higher than the argument for paying ISPs. When the cables are laid, they don't cost any time or money except for a little of maintenance. Video creators work constantly to publish their stuff.

I agree that YouTube should distribute revenue more equally among their creators, so that it stops being a casino of people working for scraps trying to make it big (Hollywood anybody?). I think it's OK to support creators through Patreon and such instead of paying for Premium, but it might not be very fair in the end, because people unwittingly will donate to creators making the type of videos they want to be associated with and not the creators making the type of videos they are spending the most time watching.

I think it is fair that a video creator who doesn't ask for donations and didn't make her videos with the aim of making money, also gets paid her fair share if a lot of people are watching and enjoying her videos. That's why premium makes more sense to me than the hassle of donating.

[zeraholladay]

but the time and effort cost of the people producing the videos. Hackers seem to conveniently always forget about these people.

FWIW, I tend to find the opposite. Maybe the people I know are just more vocal about things that make them look good to others.

A pure consumer is not worth anything to YouTube or any other platform if they're not paying or can't be advertised to. They're just a cost with no benefit.

I disagree but I understand what you're getting at. In the case of YouTube, you may be correct (or more correct than me). I'm thinking of platforms like Strava or dating apps where an active user population is part of the attraction to upsell features to paying customers.