Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.
So? They're a business, what do you expect?
The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
"Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking".
According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service.
Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.
I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly.
I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform.
I whitelist Alec at Technology Connections, Steve Mould, a couple of others, from the ad blocks, because they aren't on Nebula yet. They should be.
If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.
If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.