Back in the day most media was designed around commercial interruptions. Watch some old cartoons on Netflix, they often have “fade to black” moments after which the last 10 seconds are repeated. Nowadays commercials are algorithmically inserted into content to maximize viewership, meaning that more often then not a YouTube commercial will play right before the most important bit of the video.
So anyways, I installed Firefox with ublock origin and Sponsorblock
Still better than old school linear tv, where you paid to watch things being constantly interrupted by paid commercials.
“I"m playing both sides so that I come out on top?”
not the first time capitalism asks you for money to solve problems capitalism created…
I mean…yeah. Ads subsidize viewers that can’t/won’t pay. That’s the whole system. Did you expect something else?
The US Postal Service should get in on this action.
No, the USPS should being back basic banking at their branches.
If they’re going to add anything, add Internet as a Service, since it’s an essential utility for modern living.
[ ISPs Didn’t Like That ]
I would prefer the USPS bring back basic banking at their branches.
Looks like they trialed doing that a bit.
It’s one or the other. If you pay YouTube for Premium and don’t get any ads, advertisers don’t pay for your ad impression.
wish there was an option for “pay the platform the few cents the ads make” instead of me paying the platform a wild and ever increasing amount of money
Tbh I feel like they should take a ~30% cut from the creator tips feature and add that to a “ad balance” which would remove ads and subtract the few cents they would’ve got from the ad. That way YouTube gets paid, the consumer doesn’t get ads, and the creator gets encouraged to make good content.
You keep imagining some way how YT could get cheaper for you.
But in fact, ads are highly profitable, and if you buy a premium there’s a very transparent revenue share model. 70% of your money goes directly to the creators.
All your wishes are already fulfilled, you’re just poor and are trying to justify not paying with imagined arguments.
The thing that bothers me is the revenue doesnt go to creators that I watch. Its all pooled and divided out by view count across the entire platform. Which is bs. I dont want my money going to the top channels that i have zero interest in. A better system is dividing it out to the channels I view.
Thus why adblocking and patreon is highly popular…
Again you’re wrong. It’s counted directly by the amount you watch and goes to the creators you watch.
Or, equivalently, pool all revenue, divide by watch time, get the same result.
You can verify this by constructing an excel table of 10 users (rows) and 3 channels (columns). Assign random % weights of “watch time” per user per channel. Assume a constant subscription fee of 1. Verify that a column_sum is the same as column_average*10, where 10 is the total platform revenue, as there are 10 users each paying 1.
You are assuming a fair distribution of watch time over channels and/or over the viewers. In reality, some channels are highly popular and some are not. A few proportion of people pay for yt premium. Assuming the payer’s money get distributed equally to creators, the less popular channels get less amount from those payers. The question is, does google distribute the paid money according to each user’s view?
Then it must changed because thats not how it was when they launched it.
Most YouTube channels have a Patrion account, or something similar.
most patreons are at least $5 so if you sub to more than 2, you might as well be paying for YouTube premium
OR just pay the person directly.
My biggest gripe about Patreon is that I can’t just do a one time donation, it’s a subscription to donate money to people. Cool and all, but I’m not rich enough to just give some of my income to people, I’d rather do small donations whenever I can.
Also Patreon takes a sizeable cut too
You can sub and unsub anytime. You just lose out the “perks” of being subbed the next month.
I didn’t know it was a sub. Yeah that ruins the appeal.
Finally a non-braindead comment.
Yes, but also, running Youtube costs about 10x as much as both are paying.
Now that I don’t believe
10x may be too much, but they’re definitely
losing money withspending money on it. Lots.Any source? Last I heard Alphabet was making mad bank
Now spending/ investing money I believe. But I bet you the hell that they are going to be using all of their YouTube data to train llms and probably sell that training data. At some point. There’s no way they won’t be making bank
Only if you didn’t count the data scraping for advertisement part.
Yeah. That’s how it works. They get money either from serving you ads or exempting you from the ad service. Either way they get money.
Yes that’s how a company makes money…continue, you can do this!
Meanwhile YouTubers don’t get paid enough so they still show you their ads.
Advertising is a racket. Always has been.
Well yes, that’s how they don’t go out of business. In theory.
Ever heard of Elsevier? You pay them for the privilege of posting your article, and then they charge other people for the privilege of accessing it.
And they don’t pay the people actually proofreading/peer reviewing the stuff
Now that’s just comically evil. Who designed this system, Spez?
