Most active commenters
  • hombre_fatal(4)

←back to thread

990 points smitop | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.841s | source | bottom
Show context
akersten ◴[] No.44333609[source]
Thank you for your important work fighting this battle, it must be exhausting.

The more Google insists on forcing advertising on us, the more we should look closely at the wildly inappropriate and downright scammy ads they are hosting. If they can't leave well enough alone and look the other way on ad blocking, (which is the only way to avoid exposing myself and family to these dangerous ads), they need to be under a lot more scrutiny for the ads they choose to run.

replies(14): >>44333634 #>>44333715 #>>44333722 #>>44333741 #>>44333772 #>>44333866 #>>44333880 #>>44334127 #>>44334295 #>>44334478 #>>44334895 #>>44336346 #>>44336472 #>>44339901 #
yugioh3 ◴[] No.44333722[source]
people deserve to get paid for the work they put into creating content and building platforms, no? books, movies, tv shows, news, etc, are all distributed in some way or another that costs the consumer either money or their time viewing advertising. if you don't want to watch ads, pay YouTube for a subscription.
replies(8): >>44333777 #>>44333915 #>>44334574 #>>44334637 #>>44336354 #>>44338465 #>>44344814 #>>44347536 #
mitthrowaway2 ◴[] No.44333777[source]
YouTube spent about a decade and a half running unintrusive banner ads. Until they secured enough of the market that network effects locked content creators and consumers together in a two-sided market where it's hard for either group to leave unilaterally. Then they ramped up the length and intrusiveness of their ads while flouting content regulations on what they're even allowed to advertise.

Why should I reward that by paying them?

replies(3): >>44333833 #>>44333907 #>>44338011 #
hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44333907[source]
You can keep bringing up Google, but you're still glossing over the part where you're not paying the people creating the content you're watching.

Seems awfully convenient.

replies(4): >>44333957 #>>44333961 #>>44334001 #>>44335672 #
baobun ◴[] No.44333957[source]
If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
replies(2): >>44334004 #>>44334246 #
1. hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44334004[source]
So if I don't like Visa and Mastercard, do I also get moral carte blanche to not pay anyone because hey I'm totally urging them to only use merchants that I prefer?

Sounds like awfully convenient motivated reasoning.

replies(3): >>44334243 #>>44334248 #>>44336247 #
2. daniel-grigg ◴[] No.44334243[source]
That’s how the market works. You avoid paying extra taxes than required right? Even though that denies the government extra funding. The only difference being one has been decided as wrong and the other is fine.
replies(2): >>44335595 #>>44337885 #
3. spaceribs ◴[] No.44334248[source]
Are you asking what we should do about this situation?

Split up any and all monopolies, and nationalize what should provide a common good such as payment networks and internet infrastructure.

replies(1): >>44335105 #
4. matwood ◴[] No.44335105[source]
As a Google shareholder, I would love for YT to be spun out.
5. StackRanker3000 ◴[] No.44335595[source]
This is a weird framing

Yes, society has deemed that it’s fine to make use of the avenues that have been explicitly created to reduce your tax burden - that’s why they were created. Society is also relatively fine with using unintended loopholes for the same purpose (although it is a lot more controversial and criticized), because we don’t tend to punish people for breaking laws, rules and regulations that don’t exist. When we end up caring a lot about them, we plug the gaps

The other person was talking about straight up not paying for goods and services that are sold at a given price, which is stealing. The more apt comparison would be to tax evasion (actually breaking the law), which is a crime, widely considered wrong and punished accordingly

6. m4rtink ◴[] No.44336247[source]
Arent Visa and Mastercard defacto global monopolies that have had many controversies in the oast or bowed to outside pressure, refusing to handle payments for many perfectly legal businesses ?
replies(2): >>44336531 #>>44337930 #
7. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44336531[source]
mono, like in monopoly, means single. They would be a duopoly. Which they aren't anyway because there is also amex and discover. So maybe a quadopoly?
replies(1): >>44336544 #
8. baobun ◴[] No.44336544{3}[source]
Oligopoly, typically.
9. hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44337885[source]
It isn't how the market works, and you absolutely don't take this line of reasoning when paying someone rendering services to you which is why you instead tried to analogize it with taxes.

You only use this argument for Youtube content creators because it's trivial to avoid payment and then backsplain it with unique moral justifications.

10. hombre_fatal ◴[] No.44337930[source]
Yes. And they get some of your money in almost every transaction. Does that mean you are morally justified to dine out for free now?
replies(1): >>44338565 #
11. beeflet ◴[] No.44338565{3}[source]
The metaphor doesn't work because I can still pay in cash. A better metaphor would be choosing not to tip the waiter because you don't believe in the custom of tipping