I refuse to, because we all know where that road ends. YouTube pilots brief pre-roll ads for Premium users. Then mid-roll ads. Then longer ads. Then they open the floodgates. Google reliably acts with contempt for its users, I'm only responding accordingly.

Hah, this so much. For me it's worth the money for the family plan just to not be exposed to ads playing on family members' devices.

I create a different kind of content that Google used to train their AI and offer AI summaries. Those same summaries mean I will soon need to find another way to make rent.

Would you like a golden sticker?

Fuck that.

My household uses Newpipe we don't pay for shit.

Stealing from creators shouldn't be celebrated.

I support a _shitpile_ of creators on Patreon and Kofi and more. I subscribe to Nebula, and I get as much as I can from the creators' own pages on those services.

I'm doing my best to move my viewing off of YouTube, and move the money off of YouTube, in hopes that it eases the creators moving off of YouTube.

But you'll invariably watch from a way way bigger shitpile of creators, so without some more efficient mechanism you won't be able to spread your support properly

Google’s way of spreading that support is truly the most efficient (10s to 100s of millions per year right to the CEOs pocket).

Had me in the first half...

This is a problem itching for a solution. I'm determined to find a solution other than Youtube.

It's not stealing from creators. The creators have an agreement with Google not with me. If they feel they have been shorted, they can take it up with Google.

Ah, the old "stealing" line.

If watching with an adblocker is stealing because the video creator doesn't get ad revenue, is not watching also stealing, since they also don't get revenue? If not, how is one taking from them and the other not? What have they lost in the first case but not in the second?

It costs money to serve video. In exchange for being served the video, you watch the ad. By not watching the ad, you're stealing from YouTube and creators.

The alternative is not watching them, not paying. Revenue is unchanged.

Out of curiosity, what pays your own salary?

Not the same poster, but: Products and services that someone actually signed a contract to pay for. Google is free to not send me free video if they don't want to, I'm just connecting to their website using my browser.

But the only reason so many creators are exclusively on youtube is the fact that anyone can watch there. Google tolerates my ad blocker to some degree (unlike other sites) because the alternative is losing market share and they know it.

If creators feel cheated, they can ask youtube to stop serving their videos for free for its own interests. I'd like to see the status quo change actually.

Exactly. YouTube wants to have its cake and eat it too. YouTube would not be what it is today if it wasn't public and free at the point of use.

Anyone is free to do something in private and ticket people for it. I'm doing a concert tonight in my home, it's 100 credits for a ticket, hope you'll come! I can't guarantee anyone will come, but I can guarantee anyone who comes will pay.

There are platforms like Floatplane that use this model.

Then there's the busking model. You do it in public. You can't guarantee anyone pays, but they'll definitely come, and some will probably pay.

YouTube wants both. It wants to be the place where people busk (like the public square) but also force advertising on you. You can't have it both ways. Either go private or accept that this is public and I will do what I want with my browser.

I love the concert/busking framing, I'm definitely using that from now on.

I'm sure that's pure curiosity and not trying to make a point in a roundabout way...

And because of people like you I can enjoy their services for free. Thank you.

I find it hard to discern whether your post is sarcasm. Assuming it’s not, I’m surprised that someone is so cheerfully and voluntarily paying an extra fiat to the virtual landowner.

Have you ever made a video before? It's actually quite a lot of work, especially if it's any good. Hours upon hours of time.

Think of it like you're a street musician. You put a basket on the floor, play your music, people go by, some might pay you, most won't.

Is it wasted time? That's up to you to decide, then choose whether you want to keep doing that or not.

If you want to charge for it directly, then sell tickets for a concert (put videos on Patreon).

Video hosting is expensive. Making videos is expensive. You're not noble for stealing from Youtube or its creators.

It's not stealing. It's using. I have no obligation under any legal framework to use their content the way they wish I would. Trust me, or pay a lawyer to learn the same truth at considerably more cost.

You're legally and morally in the wrong. Just accept this instead of getting defensive. I pirate literally all of the media I consume but I don't think I;m in the right for doing so.

If it's costing YouTube so much, then they can freely switch to showing no videos to non-paying users at all. But they won't do that, because people watching without paying is what got them to where they are.

As for the creators, it's up to them to decide whether they want to publish under these terms and risk having their content viewed without being paid for, or not put it on YouTube.

It's not stealing; no one is deprived of anything except rent.

If anything the cost of making the video is sunk by the creator just once and then rapidily payed off.

Once that happens it's just hosting costs and Moore's, Kryder's and Koomey's Laws are brining that down exponetially.

Funnily enough though you never see the amount of avertising shown getting shorter to represent the lower costs involved eh?

It costs money to serve video. You're stealing from YouTube and by extension creators. No amount of mental gymnastics will change this.