this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
722 points (75.8% liked)
You Should Know
34721 readers
792 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content.
**
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Lemmings have a huge obsession with shit being both free and adfree, youtube is the most baffling one, they refuse to pay for it, then bitch about the ads, it seems they are entitled to having VoD delivered to them anytime anywhere in the world got completely free.
YouTube is a little bit different, imo. Ads essentially carpet-bomb you on YouTube, and the money isn't going to the people who actually create the content. If there were a reasonable number of ads, and they paid creators more, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it as I do.
Do you think all those bytes of video data are free to host and get to you?
Did you miss the part where I said "reasonable" and "more"? I did not say that there should be no ads or that they should pay creators everything.
YouTube makes more than $350b annually, and the most liberal operating cost estimate I've seen (they don't release numbers) has put their hosting and distribution costs at about $25b. They pay out $9b annually to creators. They have 122k employees making an average of $117k annually, so that's another $13b in employee salaries (which is always the biggest cost any company shoulders). To be extremely generous, let's assume they also spend another $40b for all the other stuff they do as a business (office space, gold for play button plaques, pizza parties for their employees, legal, etc)--to be clear, that's more than Netflix made in total last year, so while it might be ridiculously high, it's not ridiculously low.
That adds up to $87b in operating costs annually. To be even more unreasonably liberal here, let's double that. $174b in operating costs on $350b revenue would be less than half of the total, leaving them them with a whopping $176,000,000,000 in profits annually.
Only about $40b of that is ads; everything else is from subscriptions, deals, etc. And, as noted before, they pay creators about $9b annually. So if they cut ads in half, and doubled their creator payout, they would reduce their total profits to $147b. If they totally eliminated ads altogether and quadrupled their creator payout, they'd still be making more than $107 billion dollars per year above operating expenses.
They can afford to ease up on the gas a little bit.
Well yes, I'm just gonna watch Youtube videos ad free, how did you know
Youtube shouldn't be baffling to you if you pay attention. Youtube still hoards tons of data and tracking on top of its ads. And paying doesn't stop that. Also, they removed the option to pay to remove ads but skip all the other stuff. They removed that option right at the same time they started their war against ad blockers. Combine those points with the typical enshittification and we wind up with a service that doesn't deserve your pity.
Counterpoint I think there's a lot of lemmings who put a lot of money into hosting the very server you just posted this comment on.
Not sure what that has to do with my point, but okay
Not sure thats very accurate. There's a healthy percentage who donate to instances and developers, because on open source platforms/services/software you don't have just trust no ones selling your data for their profit and its good to support that.
If Google open sourced their clients, got rid of adverts and all tracking and stopped selling or giving away user data but charged a reasonable fee I'd happily use YouTube.
I am clearly talking about people who continue to use youtube and want to use youtube but also adfree and for free, if you stopped using YouTube all my respect for you for actually standing up for what you believe in.
For me at least, my objection with YouTube is that Google takes a cut. I'd much rather contribute an equivalent amount to some creators via patreon and adblock the site.
Also I'm not saying the host doesn't deserve a cut, I just think that corporations like Google are a general pest that should be eradicated
Do have any idea how difficult it is to host a video platform? The cut they take is absolutely fair.
Anyone with a cell phone can be a youtuber.
I have close to 20 years of experience in IT and I would need to spend many days to set up an alternative for myself (forget about other people) even using software already made, and it would still cost a ridiculous amount of (partially upfront) money.
My issue with that is, g didn't have to buy yt. They chose to. They fucked it. They knew going in that yt was a money pit. They understood everything, and they still did it. The users expected a decent, not ad-riddled experience, with no paywalled features, as yt was 20 years ago. For me, when g cried 'it's so hard, it costs so much money' I pulled out my tiny violin as they assfucked their users, when they realized it hurts to hemorrhage money.
That's what you signed up for, g. You saw a lemon on the dealership lot, stated 'I can fix that', and then when you realized you can't, you expect everyone else to chip in for the repair bills - by money, personal data, or both. Nah fam, that's not how we do things round here.
They knew what it costs, it was their plan all along as with every major service.
If Google hadn't bought it, YouTube would implement ads on their own, it was just not sustainable. Google had deeper pockets, could run it losing money for longer, get an even bigger share of the market and now they are cashing in, billions per quarter.
And i am one of the people paying for it, because it is a good product. Attracts good creators by paying them better than other platforms and works well everyday, on every device.
It's called a loss leader, FYI.
I don't know that much about marketing but I thought a loss leader was a specific product that attracts to the store in hopes to make a profit with other products. Put onions so cheap that people will come in and also buy potatoes and butter, and you make your profit on those.
So, stop using their service? That's the best way to eradicate google
Definitely a dissenting view but one I can't help but agree with. Same applies to piracy for me. You don't want to give Disney money? Fair enough. Very reasonable. You still "need" to watch The Mandalorian? Okay...
I disagree with that, Piracy doesn't cost anyone anything, it's people using their own internet connection and hardware to share the data, I also paid way more for my Plex setup than what it would cost to pay for streaming services.
I have everything in one place, conveniently, that's the big difference, that's why I am willing to pay more for my own setup.
I used to pay for netflix too, but then everyone started doing their own streaming service and now you need to have like 5-6 and then every country has something different on it, it's a mess.
Not to mention they did shit like removed a Community episode because I guess that fixed racism?
another thing is that Scrubs is one of my favorite shows, but because licensing deals expired they changed the soundtrack and the original soundtrack was a huge part of that show, so to see it in it's original version, you have to pirate it.
I don't think that's how most pirates, myself included, see it. It's not about "needing" to see the mandalorian, it's simply about wanting to see it, but if the only way to see it "legally" is to make a monthly subscription for a service that offers me no other value, offered by a company I don't want to support, I'm not doing that. And the thing is that it doesn't have to be this way - I happily paid for Netflix for years, before content started being fragmented. As a wise man once put it, piracy is a service problem, not a price problem.
Same with Youtube - it's not the ads, it's the endless amount, the annoying implementations, and non-creator-friendly practices. They're not doing ads in order to keep the servers running - they simply need to find new ways to squeeze every cent of profit quarter after quarter, and I'm not playing that game.
This only applies to big corps though - if you pirate indie content and don't even make a donation to the artist, you're an ass.
I really appreciate you responding to me in good faith, thanks. I know it's a fine line, but generally for me not liking the terms of the agreement isn't enough for me to force my own terms. That said, the one time I've pirated something in the last few years was when Prime removed a show from the platform when I had 1.5 episodes of 5 seasons left to go. The idea of paying an extra 10 quid to watch maybe 1% of an otherwise 'free' show pissed me off haha.
So I'm not following my philosophy perfectly either. If it came to something like wanting to watch The Mandalorian from scratch though, I would wait and buy the DVD/BluRay.
I'd pay for Youtube if Google would guarantee to not track me. I donate to open source projects that I use, rotating every month whom I choose to donate to. I even donated to Manjaro recently even though I don't use it any more, but it was something I had used in the past and I was poor and couldn't donate them then. But I refuse to feel any guilt for watching Youtube for free.