• mitch404@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 hours ago

    That’s basically google’s main business. Their business is not in web search, video platform, mobile OS, email or AI, it’s ad. People forget Google is an ad company, that uses any tool available to give you ad. If it’s free and not open source, you are the product. Either to sell your attention and availability to companies through ads, or to use your data to do profiling, build a more vicious ad platform and sell your data on the side.

  • fodor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Some of us pay ourselves to install an ad blocker and then we keep our money and we don’t get any ads.

  • jeffep@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Add to this that companies would prefer showing their ads to paying customers (who have some money to spend), not the free tier plebs

  • commander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Friend one day added me to his family plan because they had one space open. I’m still in the habit of always going to youtube in ways I can ad-block but am always pleasantly surprised when I go in the normal youtube app and I have no ads. I’ll pay for the service though

  • JackbyDev@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    15 hours ago

    I’ve said this a few times in various places, but I’m really surprised we aren’t allowed to bid for ad space for ourselves to not show an ad the way advertisers do for ads. Obviously a flat monthly rate is simpler, nobody is denying that, but just from a purely “free market” perspective (which shareholders love to say they want while using the government to crush opposition) why can’t I pay slightly more than whatever small amount of money someone is paying to show me an ad to not see the ad?

    Realistically I don’t think we’ll ever see that because it’s a fairly complicated. I don’t have any hard data, but I can’t imagine that the majority of users using something like YouTube Premium are getting a “good deal.” Sure, some folks probably watch all day every day and they get the better end of the deal, but I’d bet for a lot of folks YouTube makes more money off charging the subscription than they would showing the ads. Which is sort of an odd scenario we’ve gotten ourselves into (but amazing if you’re a company that serves ads).

    • Auth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Its a good idea but mentally people hate micro-transactions(transactions that are lower than 10cents) so they get mad every time its suggested. Plus its technically quite challenging to process those kind of transactions efficiently.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 hours ago

        You wouldn’t prompt them every time. And it would be no more difficult than serving the ads which are also charging every time they’re shown.

  • SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Its much better to pay YouTube so the YouTuber get money based on what the audience wants, and not what the Advertiser want from Youtube.

  • MoffKalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 hours ago

    “Perpetrators offer a service that will not be put into effect, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket.”

    The very definition of racketeering.