←back to thread

990 points smitop | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.829s | source
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 #
cvoss ◴[] No.44333915[source]
If I can actually pay someone for content, then, if I don't pay, I should expect not to be granted access to content.

But that's not how YT works. YT doesn't charge you for good stuff. It charges you for not delivering crap. That's not legitimate business, that's a racket. I have no qualm punishing YT for that. Content creators are free to find other ways to monetize their labor, if their labor is actually valuable. (And so many of the good ones do, quite successfully.)

replies(2): >>44334463 #>>44334776 #
Uehreka ◴[] No.44334463[source]
YouTube gives you two (2!) ways to pay for content. You can choose to pay with money, or you can choose to pay with your time and attention. If you don’t like paying with your time and attention, then either pay with money, or don’t use the service.

This “It charges you for not delivering crap.” line is bullshit. Serving video content costs money, they’ve given you the choice of how to pay for it, and you don’t like the choices but want to keep getting the content.

replies(1): >>44334983 #
gausswho ◴[] No.44334983[source]
Worse. It charges you by building a profile about you.

21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.

replies(2): >>44335247 #>>44341636 #
PurestGuava ◴[] No.44335247[source]
> 21st century nation states can better solve video scale delivery without middle parasites like Google.

If it's that easy, why has nobody done it?

(Hint: governments don't want to run YouTube, probably shouldn't run YouTube, and nobody else wants or can afford the immense costs that come with running YouTube.)

replies(1): >>44335308 #
gausswho ◴[] No.44335308[source]
I'm unconvinced. I suggest that YT's outlay is a sneeze among the budget of the US. In my estimation, all nations are lagging in the definition of what constitutes a public utility. In a decade we will be facepalming why advertisements were even needed for this common infrastructure.
replies(2): >>44335389 #>>44337857 #
PurestGuava ◴[] No.44335389[source]
Most things are a sneeze compared to the budget of the federal government of the US, that doesn't mean that's a reasonable expectation for the US government (or any government) to run them.
replies(3): >>44335427 #>>44335987 #>>44336026 #
fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44336026[source]
Phone service is recognized as a public utility. What difference justifies the failure to label internet service as a public utility?

Most governments operate a postal service. Why then should governments not provide bare bones email and video services? You have government agencies using Zoom and similar. The analogy would be discontinuing the USPS and sending official government post via a wholly unregulated Fedex. It's absurd.

replies(1): >>44336560 #
Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44336560[source]
The term is natural monopoly. These are things which cannot have competition for practical reasons.

Zoom and email are not natural monopolies.

replies(1): >>44336573 #
1. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44336573[source]
Neither is Fedex (see UPS, DHL, GSO, Amazon, the list goes on). We've still got USPS. What's your point?
replies(2): >>44336729 #>>44337939 #
2. ◴[] No.44336729[source]
3. Workaccount2 ◴[] No.44337939[source]
USPS (and most government mail services) are to provide communication to every citizen. USPS delivers to every address in the US. So the government can send ballots, send census forms, send tax forms, etc. Sure you can use FedEx to send a parcel to remote Alaskan town, but if you watch the tracking you'll see that they just hand off to USPS in Anchorage.

USPS is not a natural monopoly, it's a government service that no one else wants to do (nor would they).

replies(1): >>44349593 #
4. fc417fc802 ◴[] No.44349593[source]
Presumably a government operated email, video, or conferencing platform would also exist for the purpose of providing communication to every citizen, no? Again I ask what point you are trying to make here?

> if you watch the tracking you'll see that they just hand off to USPS in Anchorage.

Because it's cheaper to do so. They can't offer a competitive rate because USPS is eating the cost in that case. To be clear I don't think that's a bad thing it just needs to be pointed out that if USPS didn't exist Fedex (or whoever) would deliver but would charge a much higher price to the person shipping the package.

You are the one who brought up natural monopolies and I'm not sure why. Private couriers exist yet the government still finds it worthwhile to run a public one. I asked why the same should not be true of digital communication platforms for email and video. Recall that the context of my original reply was a government operated youtube.