And I, as a viewer, simply don't want... professional content.
I want to watch videos made by hobbyists for the sake of fun and to inform/debate/educate.
So by installing adblockers and shill-skipping scripts I simply vote for my interests.
Kurzgesagt started with a small group, but now numbers 64.
I'm not sure how many people are on the Answers with Joe team, but it's more than a few.
The first Crash Course video from 11 years ago lists 13 people in the credits.
So my guess is that there is much more "professional" content than might be obvious.
I think people would be shocked to find out how many channels are ran by teams of people. It's exceptionally common for people to have an editor or two to manage their social accounts or edit for their YouTube/TikTok due to the demand to have daily/weekly content is so high.
Indeed! I was surprised recently when a video creator mentioned the cameraman and producer in the room with them - up to this point I had naively assumed a one-man show, maybe with a video editor.
Even livestreamers/twitch people often have separate editors, they simply don't have the time to livestream AND edit (though there are more and more things that help with that, "edit as you go").
Unlike many supposedly professional or amateurish YouTube videos that just artificially elongate their introduction by repeat the same three introductory sentences in fifty different ways before finally getting to the 20 words-long point.
Couldn't you say that about almost any information? But the goal is to communicate, and that depends as much on how (effectively) the information is presented as on how compelling the raw information is.
But when a video is about one specific topic and people start posting timestamps along with it to tell viewers when to start watching, it means that specific content’s form is of no value to them, and many others.
People do that? Especially with Kurzgesagt, I can't remember a portion of their videos I've found to be valueless.
Kurzgesagt, here, is an example of professional content without much, if any, fluff.
Contrary to lots of content, professional or lot, which relies on artificially increasing it’s without adding any value. For these videos, people often share the timestamps at which the desired information can be found.
My videos sometimes get ads but I get $0.00
Wish they didn't but whatever
And usually the quality goes down when that happens because now creating the videos is a business which needs consistent returns which means publishing on a schedule instead of when the creator actually has something worthwhile.
By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests.
By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't.
The videos aren't put out for free, they are put out with a contract with Youtube to advertise on it. Youtube pays to host and you split the ad revenue when the creator is paid. Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them. Obviously, neither of these happens in practice and if the latter started becoming common the ability to do it would be taken away or other penalties like making the creator pay to host imposed.
"There's no such thing as a free lunch."
Would you also argue that a TV viewer that goes to the bathroom or the refrigerator in the commercial breaks steals content? Everyone avoids ads if they know how to.
We’re already paying for cable, we just watch ads because because there’s only one or two cable companies in town and they both show ads. If we could pay more to show no ads we would but it’s not an option. Netflix was letting us live the dream before every content producer decided to build their own streaming competitor, crippling their catalogue.
If you’re donating to GP skip their ads.
The "problem" (I'm in favor of skipping ads) is that a business has setup a way to make money based on some theoretical consumer model, and they would prefer if the consumer behaves like their model. However when consumers are easily able to control the product they will avoid anything that is unpleasant and only consume the thing that they actually want.
Extra revenue can come from higher pledges and merch but isn’t guaranteed.
My problem is with the above post is the lack of moral accountability of the *blockers by acting like they are doing it for some superior reason when it is self serving.
The problem with this part of your argument is that it ignores free will, and conflates morals with ethics. Blocking ads is a moral imperative for me, because I decide which programming I watch. The self-serving reasoning and the superior logical reasoning are one and the same.
Ethically, it might also be wrong to do. But not for the reasons you describe here.
If you are taking something out of a system while intentionally preventing contributing back to it, you know you are having a negative impact.
I would prefer someone either make their stand by boycotting something they disagree with entirely or admit that it has value and pay with time for ads or directly. But acting like you disagree with the material while still engaging with it and depriving the creator is immature and selfish.
I stopped trusting Youtube as soon as they added the 10 minute rule for monetization. That was quite awhile ago. You didn't see this coming and now you're blaming the viewers that are tired of having their time wasted and faith in humanity eroded from this crap. Don't make it our problem, we've dealt with it enough already.
The very idea of admonishing people for not subjecting themselves to time wasting corporate propaganda garbage is insane. How is this where we're at? People with billboard space are allowed to sell it to advertisers, but in no universe does that transaction mean that I or anyone else have to look at it. The fact that technology has allowed for ads that are harder to avoid compared to not looking at a sign in the window doesn't change the dynamic.
This is the same flawed argument against software piracy, but even more absurd. Just like piracy, this is a service problem.
Some people refuse to be forced into the transaction of selling their attention to consume advertising. Being psychologically manipulated is not worth it, and certainly not in exchange for some digital content.
If content creators understood this, they would seek out alternative business models to capture this demographic.
If they want 100% of their audience to pay for their content, they should go on a different platform and put up a paywall. You can't simultaneously want the exposure that "free" access gives you, while objecting when people choose to not participate in the business transaction you've forced upon them.
What advertising does is introduce a sleazy middleman that gets rich by tarnishing the end product and harming the consumer. Then the platform that hosts the content decides how much of this wealth gets trickled down to the actual creator, who is then annoyed when it's not enough, and blames the consumer for it.
How about eliminating the middleman and producing something people will choose to pay you for directly?
Why is ad-blocking stealing but leaving the room during ads not?
You're comparing two unlike things. The equivalent to leaving the room during TV ads would be leaving the room during YouTube ads (or changing windows/apps).
YT producers don't get paid if no ads are playing. Really, if you don't want to see ads, then don't watch the content. If you really want it then get YT Premium. Simple as that. I find it immoral that you watch the content with ad blocker and then try to justify that is within your right. Sorry.
But thanks for answering, you made it clear that you believe putting eyeballs on the ads that play is the only moral path, which is what I was asking.
Do you also believe that if you REALLY like the content you also purchase one of the advertised items? Because again, if no one acts on the ads then the advertising will eventually stop.
And I fail to see how doing so somehow meant I was taking without putting back.
The tv channel got paid the same. Advertisers just priced that into whatever they paid for the ads. One could hope for them that they wouldn’t pay for those if they didn’t find it to be worth it.
The only point I’d agree with here, is that if nobody wants to pay for these things, one way or another, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t exist for long.
But then, why should they, if nobody thinks they’re worth paying for?
> Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them.
Well, that is only because YouTube stopped paying out the small fish. You know, the ones which got YouTube popular to begin with? No longer needed, cause network effect 101 applies and the psychopath executive who got paid hundreds of dollars per hour coming up with schemes to increase shareholder value figured that out at some point, probably via 'market research'.
Now, I watch (more often: listen while doing other stuff) some 'creators' (the word alone is cringe, like 'influencer' (marketeer) and 'crypto' ('cryptocurrency' or 'ponzi scheme')). Their content is a lot of fluff, they don't have much substance, and the content can easily be better summarized. If anything, they're leaching valuable time. But I do get it! Its 'entertainment'. That's what 'creators' are: 'entertainers'. And also, liars and manipulators. Take clickbait titles, for example.
And I am totally fine with entertainment moving to paywalls. These probably contain more substance and less fluff. As much as I hated to pay for say Windows (more to do with... Windows, and Microsoft) or say CDs and vinyl, it is a more honest model than the advertising industry or the subscription shenanigans. And paying for something, makes it feel more special, so it better have some valuable content.
Like and subscribe my post if you enjoyed it. Imagine people writing such on forums under every post. You'd easily see what an annoying mess it would become. That's the gist of YouTube these days, probably TikTok as well (with these dumb challenges which are outright dangerous, and the 'creators' are getting away with such behavior). Another example of advertising gone insane: Google TV. When my kids turn on the TV, they see the apps and yes it might be locked the content. But Google advertises on the home screen, including with content not viable for my children. Its the same when I open the app for the Dutch public broadcasting content (the stuff I pay for via tax, akin to BBC). I immediately get suggestions for content. Why? I know what I want to watch: NOTHING. I'm trying to get to my kids profile to watch one of the series they always watch at this time of the day, after dinner.
Advertising is the cancer of the internet. It even started that way (it was Sun or DEC spamming Usenet). And it can be done in a non-obtrusive way. Look at the advertising on this website, how it works. It never bothered me. Because it isn't all shit and evil, just a lot of it is.
You mean like people do on Stack Overflow? "Please mark my answer as accepted if it helped you."
Very different goals for the person saying like/subscribe or mark my answer accepted.
I'm going to ignore the moralizing for the moment.
Either it works as a vote, or it doesn't.
Your initial post about needing to shift monetization strategies clearly describes it working as a vote. Right?
> you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't.
> The videos aren't put out for free
I don't even try to excuse myself if you call it 'stealing', instead I'll just agree, since from your point of view - me watching your videos with adblockers enabled basically makes me a thief of your potential profits (which isn't a direct loss, but a somewhat comparable thing).
Thing is (which many people that upvoted my previous post would probably disagree with) - I am not nice at all:
I don't care about your profits.
I don't owe you anything.
You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public!
Oh, but you did? Well, I might watch them for free now with all my adblockers (if, I wish so), because that's now for me to decide. I might rewind your videos if I get bored or annoyed by some parts.
And I don't care what you think about it.
I just wanted to explain my position that your choices affect you and my choices affect me: you can't command me and I can't command you.
You chose to become a professional youtuber - go you!
I chose to be a pirate - yarrr! I might watch your content for free!
p.s.: another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment. Does this make you a hypocrite? [That's a joke, re-read my comments for free as many times as you like, I'm a hobbyist poster!]
At least you are honest that you are stealing the content. And you don’t care what the creators think about it. Respected!
> You want money for your videos? You are free to sell them! Don't upload them into public!
Can anything that are public be taken away? Can I take your backpack if you leave it next to you in public? How do I know what your intention is if you don’t hold it?
> another thought that entertains me: as you might have not noticed - you didn't pay me for reading my comment.
I doubt you can comment on HN with an ad. Unless you do product placement, perhaps being a shill. Are you? (I’m only joking of course)
> By not watching the video you would be voting for your interests.
I don't browse YouTube and only watch anything from there when it is either linked in a community I participate in or spammed in search results. I am not going to exclude myself from discussion or submit myself to psychological manipulation to take part in it. If you don't want people watching your shit for free then be hones about it and put a price tag on it. And for the second case I usually don't want a video in the first place but only one small bit of information which is where TFA comes in.
> By watching the video with adblock and etc. you are just "stealing" content and trying to excuse yourself for it by wishing it was something it isn't.
Seethe harder. By engaging in advertising-based business models you are making the world a worse place.
> Your hypothetical successful "hobbiest for the sake of fun" would either not enter the partner program and let Youtube keep all of the ad revenue they will run anyway, or enter the partner program and disable monetization and abuse Youtube for content hosting without delivering anything back to them.
Ideally they wouln't hose on YouTube at all but if they must (which they might for visibility) then choosing the second option is the morally right thing to do.
And in case you still don't get it, read this quote:
> People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
> You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
> Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
> You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
– Banksy
And also, in many fields there is lots of professional content that's been fully paid for before it hits YouTube - for example, professors make available to the public work that they've already been paid for, and they have no need at all to get paid twice.