That may be true, but if you don't like YouTube, go somewhere else.
The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors.
So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else.
I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.
Some people would be ok with paying but you cannot pay and still be an anonymous user. You need to be logged in and trust that Google won’t track you if you ask them not to.
How about no?
There are anti competitive practices at place here and we are not supposed to just sit and take it, not all of us are Americans that accept unrestricted capitalism with the no breaks.
I suppose you were also fine with Unity's change of toś and pricing, but many others weren't. We sent a strong enough message to the company so that their CEO resigned and hit them hard in the wallet and now they know better. As should you.
What happened here is they cornered the market (a monopoly), and now are rising prices and making it impossible to use their product without giving them both your data AND money. The same thing can happen to your water, electricity and phone bills, if the governments didn't mandate anticompetitive practices in law. That is the same reason Verizon in the US is so expensive yet so bad in terms of value for money.
Stop pushing your 'accept it or move on' mentality on others. There is lot to be done here with collective action and government support, not every country is 'everybody on their own' and
'Big Corp rule' like the US. So stop it.
We don't want to go somewhere else unless we can help it, and are willing to fight for a better internet.
I'm curious -- what do you want to happen in this situation? What is your best desired outcome? It sounds like you are arguing that video sharing sites are a utility?
Video sharing sites of the size/impact of Youtube, similarly to social platforms like Facebook/Instagram/Twitter whatever, and platforms like Google Search/Maps, etc have a tremendous impact on society. They have become a major way of how people communicate, make daily choices, purchasing decisions, vacation plans, etc.
When a company is that big and that impactful (despite being a for-profit company), it is in interest to the general public that there are some checks and balances in place.
For me, the best scenarios is governments involve themselves as they involve themselves in other areas of business:
- telecommunications and utilities (Verizon)
- transport (Uber has different treaties/operating models in different countries)
- online marketplaces (Google)
Only through treating these behemoths as providers of "public goods/utilities" via our governments, can we have them not regressing to what any monopoly would naturally regress to: arrogant hands-twisting thugs, not afraid to exploit their users for every penny.
Keep in mind that governments already DO involve themselves in the business (mal)practices of these tech giants. For example, Tesla's new cybergarbage is unlikely to pass a scruitiny in the EU due to pedestrian safety/impact concerns. Google/Facebook/Instagram all have to respect the GDPR and its US cousin the CCPA, etc, etc. If it wasn't for measures like this, you'd not have "do-not-track" options in your browser, nor would you have adblockers in the Google play store...
I simply want MORE, quicker and better government involvement into anticompetitive practices that (mostly) US tech giants use.
in other words, the proposed is a policy for which other people (whom you view as having more wealth) gets taxed for a benefit for which you will gain.
In my country I am taxed 52%, and I don't mind that. I clearly see the money going into public infrastructure, roads, public transport, social housing, greening the cities, etc. If I am unable to work due to illness, I will benefit from 80% of my salary for many years, and after that, 70%. You should give more to the system proportionately to how wealthy you are. People with 10 mansions and a fleet of cars and a private jet while there are homeless on the streets, that is an abberation. The current system is failing because when people get beyond a certain amount of wealth, their wealth can increase exponentially, while they are not taxed exponentially. It's a finite planet, after all. Infinite wealth growth of a few while many can barely afford rent is like cancer and should be taxed to oblivion.
If I was earning more, I would not mind sharing an ever increasing percentage of that in terms of taxes. I don't need 20 houses and 20 cars, and my own rocket, no individual person needs that. People like that should not be allowed to exist by the government.
Btw here are two recent examples what can be done when a monopoly like Youtube tries using their dominant position in the market to squeeze workers or consumers:
As you can see, both organized worker action and government oversight work very well to curb greedy companies. So please, when you see people outraged and trying to organize, if you don't want to join, don't, but don't try to tell people to 'just accept it', because we won't. We are angry and have had it up to here with corporate greed.
The argument that it's your machine and you choose what to run on it no longer holds when YouTube clearly no longer wants people with ad blockers as visitors.
So watch ads, pay up, or go somewhere else.
I always get downvoted for stating the obvious, but YouTube's monopoly was helped by adblockers, because alternatives, like Vimeo, couldn't differentiate themselves by being ads-free.