[graemep]

I am not going to watch billions of Videos.

Its not entirely ad free, just fewer ads, AFAIK sponsored segments remain so there are still ads, sometimes quite lengthy ones.

$14/month is $168 an year, and if you subscribe to multiple other video services the annual total is going to be quite high.

[carlosjobim]

YouTube is 10x the quality and 10x the quantity than any other video service.

As for the ads, YouTube Premium now has built-in sponsor skip. They can't really block sponsored segments, as that is a freedom of speech issue and also something they can't easily determine. Creators can just omit that some product is sponsored.

[embedding-shape]

> YouTube is 10x the quality and 10x the quantity than any other video service.

I guess you could say YouTube surfaces a larger span of quality, from really shit quality to incredible high quality, which I guess is cool. But since they provide zero tools to actually discover the really high quality, and on top of that decide they know better what I want to watch than me (like the subscriptions page not starting with the last published video), does that really matter?

> as that is a freedom of speech issue

It isn't. Freedom of speech in the US (since Google is based there, and maybe you too?) is about the government placing restrictions, not companies or individuals. As a individual (or company), you're free to limit the speech of anyone who want on your platform, for any reason. You might face public outcry, but it isn't a freedom of speech issue as it's on a private platform in the first place.

[carlosjobim]

They provide all the tools to discover high quality videos and channels. It's called "like and subscribe". If you use those features, it doesn't take long before YouTube shows you only high quality videos. And there's also the dislike button and "Do not recommend this channel again", if you need.

> Freedom of speech in the US...

Freedom of speech is a subject which is much larger than the US constitution. I'm not saying YouTube isn't legally allowed to block sponsored segments. I'm saying that they might not want to because they don't want to limit their creators' speech in that matter. Especially considering how easy it would be to side-step. What would be their reason? They've already made it easy to skip sponsored segments.

[hollerith]

>Creators can just omit that some product is sponsored.

Not true in the US, where the FTC requires (and has required for decades) disclosure by the creator to the viewer whenever a payment has been made to the creator to promote anything. On Youtube, this is typically done by the creator's saying (in the video) "this video is sponsored by Foo Corporation", or, "I wish to thank the sponsor of this video, Foo Corporation".

Personally, I'm unhappy with Premium's built-in sponsor skip. For one thing it becomes available to me only after enough previous viewers have manually skipped over the sponsored segment. For another, it sometime skips ahead too far (probably because the viewers who manually skipped weren't precise in skipping exactly to the end of the sponsored segment). I'd much rather Youtube allowed the uploader to declare (to Youtube) that the upload is free of sponsors (e.g., by checking a box) and then punishing the uploader somehow if he routinely declares falsely. With that information, Youtube could and IMHO should give me the option of telling Youtube somehow (e.g., by checking a box) that I prefer for sponsored videos to be omitted from my recommendations.

[carlosjobim]

I don't think individual YouTube creators are too much concerned about FTC rules and regulations.

Although I like your idea about creators themselves having to declare to YouTube their sponsored segments.

[hollerith]

Individual Youtube creators in the US most certainly are concerned about the FTC and about this rule specifically because they do not want to find themselves in court explaining to a judge why they shouldn't pay a big fine.

Also, if the creator doesn't follow the rule, the sponsor can be fined by the FTC, so even before the FTC notices the violation, the sponsor will probably notice and refuse to continue the relationship unless the creator's videos comes into compliance with the rule.

Again, this rule has been in effect for decades in the US. Advertisements in the US must be labeled as such. Ditto paid endorsements.

[hiccuphippo]

Youtube is both 10x and 0.1x the quality, and the official app has no way to filter it. They even removed the feature (downvotes) to let the user filter it.

And the proliferation of AI videoslop is only making the 0.1x side larger and larger

[stronglikedan]

sponsored segments are skipped with a single button push, so they are negligible. it also comes with yt music

[cyberax]

SponsorBlock helps with them.

[graemep]

I do not use it because I do want to support the people I watch. I just skip manually if it is of no interest.

[cyberax]

I have YT Premium that pays much more than sponsors. That's also why I just use Firefox instead of third party apps to watch YT.

[Groxx]

essentially every YouTuber I've watched who discussed their financials said that their sponsorships brought in several times more money than all forms of YouTube money.

which is a very niche slice, and I have no idea how representative it is in aggregate. but sponsorships happen because they pay well enough to annoy every viewer, not just ones that aren't using the better-paying Premium - they generally are not cheap, to say the least.

[cyberax]

Linus Tech Tips disclosed their finances: https://www.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1jjplow/ltt_... - and their sponsorships are less than the YT ads income.

If you look at Premium, it's about 100x more lucrative than regular views. So I'm pretty sure I'm providing more money to creators than the skipped ads.

[Groxx]

To be clear: I completely believe that Premium is a major source for many people. 100%. I just haven't seen many examples of it, outside tubers that have zero sponsorships (because they're small and/or not doing the low-value slightly-shady ones that get spammed everywhere). I'm thrilled that Premium seems to pay relatively well, it's better for everyone to move away from ads where possible.

LTT though is a rather significant outlier in terms of subscribers (16.6 million right now). For truly large channels it's reasonable for the equation to be different.

And the equation for them really is different. They're a company with ~100 employees¹ and YouTube and video sponsorships came out to just 11.6% (ads AND premium) and 9.2% respectively of their multi-person company income. People claiming "SponsorBlock steals from creators" aren't talking about LTT, they're talking about smaller creators for whom YouTube stuff is a majority of their income.

Plus, like. Ads+premium lumped into one. It wouldn't surprise me if premium was lower than sponsorships.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Media_Group