[doublemint2203]

they're not saying it because microeconomic pressures result in a system where YouTube is unenjoyable or expensive. As humans, we can organize this system to be an enjoyable, free tool, and Google won't be terribly affected by the minor loss in profits but instead, the pressures of capitalism drive innovation to optimize for an undesirable outcome. this isn't negative commentary on capitalism itself, but a roundabout way of saying Google is fucking greedy, I'm a student, and nobody should ever have to pay 9 bucks for youtube.

[its_ethan]

The good news is you don't have to pay 9 bucks for youtube

[carlosjobim]

>As humans, we...

"We" as in those other guys have to create all the videos without compensation and I watch them without giving any compensation. What a nice "we" we have, I wonder how long the other guys will stick around?

[account42]

Those other guys have been around for longer than the concept of advertising. It is human nature to create and share those creations.

[Teachez]

There's a lot of double think around here that resolves around the call to do your bit and support Google's model. I should know better but I still find it breathtaking. Capitalism's benefits are brought to fruition through competition, and hard nosed decisions on all sides. I was raised by a capitalist believer. That is what he instilled in me. The willingness of the consumer to exercise choice is paramount. As such, I rail against the fatalism that we must pay, and not find ways to not pay.

Good grief, no. That 9$ is urgently required in order to purchase healthy food at spiralling prices, and to pay for the requirements for healthy activities.

Google? The last people i am concerned about. Content makers, that's an interesting story. SV and others rips them off, and crushes the business models that supported their livelyhoods. But now I have to be concerned about the youtube content makers?

Think about it. People do things without recompense all the time. It's called joy, or something. It is a fact. If that's not possible, they could investigate setting up patreons.

What YT have somehow done is repackage their business model in vivo in your head. It's not Yt's business model at all. It is a moral obligation to creators.

The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course.

Consumers with a moral concern for the world rather than just passing emotional whims are supposed to allow themselves to recognise how hard nosed the investors and executives are.

This is all business. All transactions. Forget the selling of attention and data. Your presence and interest in a thing is advertising, and affirms it as something of value.

I'm respectful of the desire to support people who create things of value for us, but it's absolutely vital to realise that one of life's great joys is doing so for free.

Frankly sometimes when I feel there's also an air of desperation around this discussion. If the transition from free to paid service can't be normalised, a lot of people on here would seem to stand to lose or face uncertainty.

I wish I could impart upon people there is a great need to frequently revisit and exploring our moral, ethical social contracts - and to realise how flimsy our justifications are, and how limited we are in being able to concieve of the realities involve. There's something childlike about it. It's hard to know when just to leave that alone, as entire point is that life might not offer any certainty whatsoever as to the 'goodness' inherent in the act or any protection against it unwittingly - in the final analysis - proving to be a terrible thing for all involved, if only we understood (but we can't).

Basically... uhhh.... we could stand to be hard nosed consumers. Not cynical, but perhaps not avoiding the "realist" view that there are huge and unavoidable ambiguities and contradictions in everything we are engaging with, and pretending otherwise is not about being a wise adult, it's about silly and childish ideas such as good and evil.

I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.

[carlosjobim]

> The obvious call concern is that Google are emotionally exploiting you. As the services are addictive by nature, that is par for the course.

I think this part is how our views differ. YouTube is a whole lot different than it used to be, and it's a whole lot deeper than what it looks on the surface. There's a ton of videos there that aren't made to be addictive. For example world class instructional videos, educational videos, and such.

You can rant at me for going to the super market, claiming they're exploiting me by putting addictive sugar and other crap in the candy bars and potato chips. That is what you go to the supermarket for and the only thing you see. But I go to the back to buy vegetables and a steak.

> I think it's important to remember life was fine for everyone long before Google, and would be just fine if they vanished in the next two decades.

The same can be said of any technology, or just in general anything. But information can have immense value. Today if you have a car problem you can go on YouTube and find a video with an expert showing you exactly what to do. Just one of many examples. There was no business model for independent video creators before YouTube. Now the consumer can choose freely, instead of the capitalist or communist scumbag executives deciding what should be seen.

> This is all business.

Yes, and the product is incredibly cheap for the amount of value you can get from it.

One thing communists and capitalists have in common is that they can never enjoy life for a single moment. One for the obsession of making a dollar, the other for the obsession of saving a dollar. All beauty is sucked out of life by these materialistic faiths.