this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
804 points (98.8% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54539 readers
266 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

To get rid of the annoying YouTube message (ad blocker are not allowed on Youtube) use this custom filter in uBlock extension

  1. Open uBlock extension dashboard
  2. Open my filters tab
  3. Copy & Paste this code into my filter
  4. Apply changes and close all tabs

via: enderman

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Paying to remove ads is part of the ad business model. Upset your customer enough until they give you money to make it stop. Once you pay to remove the ads you have rewarded them for implementing ads which lets them know that implementing ads was a great way at making money.

So YouTube premium is not another model. It is the same model. Another model is paying for a service that never had ads at all such as NebulaTV or CuriosityStream.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So "pay or you don't get shit" is okay, but "pay or see ads, your choice" is bad somehow?

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Somehow? Paying to remove ads is rewarding ads thus causing more ads in the world. It's not mysterious at all.

There are plenty of ways to not make it an all or nothing service, but that is at least the most straight forward. You could potentially give some of it away and then have to pay for the rest. Or have some stuff for free and more premium content is paid for. Or perhaps based on bandwidth with video quality / resolution.

Anything that is not ads is going to be an improvement.

[–] The_Terrible_Humbaba@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

All those are fine suggestions, but a "free with ads" option isn't that bad either; the real problem isn't the ads themselves. The real problem is how intrusive the ads are, how many of them there are, as well as much information they (and YouTube) collect on you. Plus, in this case, the company in question isn't exactly a small company who is financially struggling. It's the classic capitalist problem of "infinite growth", where your profits have to be constantly increasing.

But there's nothing inherently wrong about the idea of having ads, just like there's nothing inherently wrong about youtubers having sponsors.

[–] IzzyData@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That's a fine opinion, but I happen to disagree.

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee -5 points 1 year ago

It's not pay or remove ads. It is pay to give us the money that we need to run our business or we will use ads to get that much money