←back to thread

192 points bgstry | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
vages ◴[] No.26887003[source]
I get the technical justification for doing this: You own your player, so you should be able to control it in whatever way you want. But as consumers, how do we expect the uploader to get paid for their work if we use both Adblock and Sponsor-skip (for the lack of a better word)?

Pay to watch is, of course, an option, but that leads to discrimination based on income – unequally distributed between parts of the world and individuals in the same part of the world. (Yes, I am aware that the sponsorship system leads the creators to cater to the more well-off within each bubble, so it's still a bit discriminatory.)

Any ideas or objections?

replies(13): >>26887078 #>>26887113 #>>26887116 #>>26887152 #>>26887154 #>>26887171 #>>26887177 #>>26887263 #>>26894852 #>>26895520 #>>26896735 #>>26899505 #>>26904839 #
ThatPlayer ◴[] No.26887116[source]
Personally I do pay for YouTube Premium, so videos I watch do make money (and do not have ads for me). As for in-video sponsor segments, I doubt the actual sponsors get any analytics about when they're skipped or not.
replies(4): >>26887135 #>>26887145 #>>26895249 #>>26896102 #
spockz ◴[] No.26895249[source]
Does YouTube share a part of your premium/fee to the creators based on what you watched? That is actually pretty neat.
replies(2): >>26896058 #>>26896424 #
1. creato ◴[] No.26896058[source]
That is my assumption and it would be shocking if that were not the case. This is the case for ad revenue. Youtube premium replaces ad revenue with a fee.

The interesting question I'd like to know the answer to is if creators get more money per ad impression or per premium subscriber view.