←back to thread

990 points smitop | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
chii ◴[] No.44335987{3}[source]
why should US taxpayers subsidize a service for which non-US citizens could get a benefit from without paying any taxes?

"The gov't should pay for it" is not a solution to private problems.

replies(1): >>44336771 #
1. Y_Y ◴[] No.44336771{4}[source]
> why should US taxpayers subsidize a service for which non-US citizens could get a benefit from without paying any taxes?

Because US citizens would benefit? Preventing outsiders from incidentally benefiting isn't a constitutional mandate (yet).

Would you oppose an anti-pollution measure even though it would also provide cleaner air to neighbouring countries?