kogasa

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

It's not that they couldn't burn billions of dollars for the betterment of society. It's that obviously they won't. If YouTube weren't supposed to be profitable it wouldn't exist.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I simply disagree.

I don't care

Stats if YouTube show not just a small sustainable gain, but we are taking 4-5x their income from 10 years ago. https://mobilemarketingreads.com/youtube-revenue-and-usage-statistics-2020/

It doesn't matter

What they’re doing with ads is annoying as shit and their right to do as it’s their business to run. It’s my right to run my browsers how I want. Also my right to filter traffic in and out of my network.

I don't care

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

YouTube is only one section of an entire corporation.

It's a corporation, not a charity. They don't spend tens of billions per year out of good will.

Ads were fine, the ads now are not fine.

Ads were not making enough money to justify continued operation.

They were successful when they were less intrusive, why do they need to do things this way and break up the videos when they have grown an empire on what was previously done?

Because "what was previously done" is not sustainable.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

They had paid for it for years.

Yes. With the intent of making a profit eventually. Or they wouldn't have.

They combat this with the price of add on devices, wall mounts, hdmi cables, etc.

What is YouTube going to "combat" with if not advertising or subscriptions...?

This is where my brain says fuck you. One billon means you’ve won. Stop being a greedy dick.

One billion means nothing if you're spending tens of billions per year to continue operating. I'm not suggesting the CEO of YouTube deserves to get richer. I'm saying the company has operational expenses and investments that require some level of profitability, and "free for everyone forever" is literally just not a viable option.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

That's obviously not sustainable. At some point they need to recover expenses on all their infrastructure and development. It can either be through ads or a subscription model. Alternatively they shut down permanently. Which do you want?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago

Yes. Fine. I'm just saying "option to disable the feature" is not an ideal solution when people are abusing a feature. That doesn't mean I think you shouldn't be able to disable it.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Allowing people to better control how they're identified. Not to write Zalgo spam on people's screens.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I agree for drinking at home, but for travel, get a ceramic-lined double-walled steel cup like a Fellow Carter or a Stanley Ceramivac. (I use the Carter and love it.)

view more: ‹ prev next ›