1297
Google raising price of YouTube Premium to $13.99 per month (9to5google.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
801 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Personally, I like it when the content creators I spend time watching get paid for their work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So pay them directly or through other platform. Why would you pay them through Youtube rather than Patreon when using Youtube Premium is going to make them get a lower share of what you paid?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    My resources are limited. I'd love to support them all in more direct ways. And a few of them, I do support outside of YouTube from time to time, as well. But I only have so much money to give, and there's so many creators whose works I've benefited from. It's the most conscientious use of my limited expendable income.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Because the platform does actually deserver a share, too?

    We'd be living in a very different world if we hadn't grown entitled to free shit because ads, and were actually paying for services that, you know, cost money to provide. The "ad supported" business model is utterly broken, dead, and gone, and was only ever able to support low-cost services like email and social media... But video streaming? By all accounts, it makes no sense.

    And on top of that, YouTube's revenue share is by far the most generous in the industry. There's a reason creators ditch twitch, tiktok, etc. for it, even without the sign-on bonuses that other platforms have to resort to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Ah, yes, I can see the poor company is suffering, nevermind, I prefer my money to go to shareholders who have their life solved rather than towards creators who are making amazing content yet aren't making a living yet /s

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 child)

    So you just... never buy anything? Do you shoplift your candy bars, too, since they are probably made by a company that makes more than enough already?

    YouTube is trying to move away from a shit business model, to a much more fair one. One that's more fair for the platform, more fair for the creator, and more fair for the user. Because guess what, taking shit for free, was never fair. I'm not paying to support google. I'm paying to support common sense.

    Ads are shit. They are shit for the platform running them, they are shit for the creator, and they are especially shit for the user. Fuck em. Actual subscriptions net so much more for all involved. As long as YT doesn't try to double dip like twitch, hulu, and now netflix, I will continue to support a move away from them.

    The size of a business doesn't come into that. A mom and pop car service shop that scams their customers with technobabble, would be just as deserving of bankruptcy as facebook is.

    And paying for premium isn't mutually exclusive with donations, or supporting through patreon (which guess what, also takes a cut), when you find creators who you think deserve it. But you can't claim to be righteous if you pay for the food a farmer grew, while the truck driver who actually brought it to you is standing right there, unpaid. No, his cut should not be large, but he should get one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    The concept of fairness for Youtube gets out of the equation at the very moment we're talking about a natural monopoly with the capacities to accumulate immense wealth, for the mere virtue of having the lead, and bend the knees of anyone who thinks their policies are not fair, but cannot find a viable alternative.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    No shades of grey for you, huh.

    Yeah I'm not a fan of their lead either, but until peertube or something else, like floatplane or nebula, lets me interact with the type and amount of content youtube hosts...

    I will vote for the least evil path I can find. And yes, I think paying youtube to remove the fourth party in the transaction, advertisers, is that option.

    Adblock is not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent