←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{3}[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{4}[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{5}[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{6}[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 #
gausswho ◴[] No.44335427{7}[source]
I challenge the idea that private enterprise could solve the scaling component better than a government could. We've reached this comedy of ads and surveillance capitalism because private strategies are flailing.
replies(1): >>44335963 #
agent327 ◴[] No.44335963{8}[source]
As a thought experiment, is it realistic to get every tax payer to pay for funny cat videos? Because that will be a reality in your non-capitalist utopia.

Or maybe there just won't be any cat videos, because the state has decreed them unnecessary or even harmful? How about political messages, is the state going to allow those to be posted on its platform? There are bound to be a few that go against state policy...

You could argue that the same is true for broadcast TV, and I would 100% agree. The state has no business running or even funding public television.

replies(2): >>44336052 #>>44337851 #
1. TheOtherHobbes ◴[] No.44337851{9}[source]
You're literally describing how content censorship already works on YouTube and Meta. Both companies curate content and have selective - opaque - policies about what gets boosted and what gets deboosted.

Also remember that legitimate creators keep being demonetised for no reason because AI moderation has a brainfart and no human is in charge.

And then there's the clusterfuck around malicious copyright strikes made for bad faith reasons by non-owners.

With public infrastructure there's at least some nominal possibility of democratic accountability - not so much in the US, large parts of which are pathologically delusional about public infrastructure as a concept, but it should be an option in countries with saner and more reality-based policies.