• DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    So you’re saying the audience for the ads have the people who are willing to pay for stuff, the very people the advertisers are paying to reach, removed from it.

    I wonder how much longer this will go before the advertisers catch on to that.

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    y’know, it used to be that you paid money for things and there wasn’t even an ad option.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean companies don’t pay if you don’t see the ads, they just show the ads to someone else and you didn’t pay if you see the ads.

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 day ago

    As a highly experienced software developer, I’m available for not writing software at a reduced rate of $45/hr, and I can handle unlimited overtime.

    • underwire212@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      As a highly experienced murderer, I’m available for not murdering you and skinning your family alive in front of you for a low cost of just $40/hr.

  • Gutek8134@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    2 days ago

    Ever heard of Elsevier? You pay them for the privilege of posting your article, and then they charge other people for the privilege of accessing it.

  • nialv7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    not the first time capitalism asks you for money to solve problems capitalism created…

  • rickdg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Meanwhile YouTubers don’t get paid enough so they still show you their ads.

  • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    You forgot the part where they pay the video creator 50% of the money and use the other 50% to run one of the most computationally expensive and complex services on the internet.

    • Michal@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I don’t know about computationaly expensive. Once video is processed, it’s mostly just a fancy CDN.

      • Eiri@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        Wouldn’t serving video and bandwidth concerns count as complexity?

      • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I was sort of lumping storage and compute costs together as “compute” but compute itself is probably astronomical too.

        Even if it was just a CDN, a cdn at that scale streaming that much content simultaneously would require a huge amount of compute just to handle the streaming request traffic.

        There’s also the recommendation algorithm which is powered by ai and takes a shit ton of parameters, at that scale that would be a massive computational task in and of itself.

        Even video processing they probably send it through a couple Ai pipelines to add subtitles, make sure it’s not porn, check if your discussing topics with high misinformation so it can put that Wikipedia link below the video, etc.

        All that plus probably another million other little problems that comes with running a service at that scale.

  • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The thing with advertising is that the advertisers make more money in product sales from people who watched ads than they spend telling YT to push their ads. That’s just how the advertising business works.

    In other words, either the viewers pay youtube not to show ads, or the viewers pay the advertisers to pay youtube (in a roundabout way).

    So it’s just you paying in both cases, unless you use an adblocker :)

    PSA: firefox + ublock origin blocks youtube ads even on mobile (on android at least)

  • Serinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’d pay YouTube if it were $5/month instead of $15.

    In fact, a couple of my favorite YouTube creators are on nebula.tv and I pay them $30/year.

    • cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d pay YouTube if it were $5/month instead of $15.

      It’s less than 5/month on the family plan IF you have 4 other people you’d like to share with

      The family plan is the only reason I pay for premium lol.

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Is a treadmill show just something you watch while you’re on the treadmill?

        • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          honestly i’m not sure lol. I prefer shows I don’t have to pay too much attention to but i always end up watching real life lore/geopolitic/news videos and get really wrapped up in them. I’ll probably classify them as shows that i watch in my own and not with my fiance.

          • Obi@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Right I meant more the expression itself, first time I see it I think.

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I pay $14CAD for Crunchyroll and I don’t even use it that much. I use hours and hours of Youtube content pretty much every day. I also had Nebula but need to get that sorted again now that they aren’t with Curiosity Stream.

      People will pay for a lot of stuff but ask them to pay for Youtube and they will lose their damn minds.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        YouTube doesn’t even produce their own content. I’d rather get it somewhere else, if creators offer that option.

        • Soup@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Sure, but considering just how much they need to store and serve to viewers at the highest speed I kinda get it. Look if it was $20CAD a month I’d definitely reconsider, and if they start putting ads in anyway I’ll cancel because I’m not paying to still see that shit, but for now it’s fine.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I wish Nebula had official support for third party clients.

      What I really want is a more decentralized approach. Hosting video is expensive so it would be idea if it could be offloaded to smaller community devices instead of huge server farms.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      They would lose money with every user if this was the case, UNLESS they stopped paying creators entirely

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d gladly pay €15 a month if they guaranteed not to track me on the internet.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean…yeah. Ads subsidize viewers that can’t/won’t pay. That’s the whole system. Did you expect something else?