• BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    Well, actually, they have to create a service that caters to people who bring them revenue. If that isn’t you, they don’t have to, and actively shouldn’t, cater to you at all.

    You’re just saying “I don’t have an actual answer” in a roundabout way.

      • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        For someone who doesn’t care and has no viable responses to the questions here, you sure do have a lot to say.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t really care if the make poor decisions and end up with an unviable business model. I’ll do other things with my time.

        Alternatively, they’ll take steps towards a more viable business model, and you’ll also find other things to do with your time.

        I’m willing to put in time and effort to make sure I see as few as possible.

        You can zap all ads forever with a few minutes and a credit card, if you’re willing.

          • candybrie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 years ago

            We have no idea if YouTube operates at a loss or is profitable. Google won’t say. Revenue really tells you very little when you look at what it takes to run something like YouTube. It’s a huge reason why an open competitor is so hard to make work.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.socialBanned from community
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        Ultimately, they have no obligation to provide you something of value for free, and given that you do apparently use YouTube, they are objectively providing you something of value. They’re completely within their rights to not do that.

          • candybrie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            If you aren’t getting paid for your content, they’d probably be glad to not have to host it anymore. Anyone with content where it’s worth them hosting it is getting paid.

    • roo@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      I paid for Lynda.com, and it could have easily taken in more business if YouTube wasn’t working so hard for Google ads. There are a lot of paid (and free) services that suffer because of YouTubes ad-money business model.

      Netflix could use the extra business. There are plenty of services failing to thrive while YouTube exists. Peertube would be wide open if YouTube went the way of most of Google’s stable of apps. PeerTube is wide open even if YouTube doesn’t go away anyway.

      People genuinely hate ads. It’s a high degree of enshitification. YouTube could divide into paid content and free content in a simple Freemium model.

      Or, add third tier with ads, which any user can opt out of in the same way contributers can. I’d be happy to click subscribe on an ad free experience with less content available to me.

      Or, add an option for a couple of free tier items per month, week, or day. Like Medium’s business model.

      It’s not hard to stop sucking!