Hacker News Reader

Comment by machdiamonds | Hacker News Reader

It's crazy to me how entitled some people are. I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads. YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided. It's also funny how many people say they'll stop using YouTube because their ad blockers won't work anymore. This actually just helps YouTube, since they won't have to waste bandwidth on users who don't bring in any revenue.

View on HN

> I've seen many posts on Reddit where people think they should be able to use a service like YouTube for free without ads

I should be able to control my computer and choose what is displayed to me.

> YouTube isn't free to run, and they offer an ad-free service that is reasonably priced for the value provided

YT undercut their rivals and monopolised the market very early on, perhaps illegally, time may tell. I'm sure many users would happily watch their videos elsewhere with different business models and privacy policies but YT largely monopolises the ameteur video market, excluding video shorts like TikTok and it's simply not possible to watch a YT video somewhere else.

If only there was a technology that would solve this problem (cough ActivityPub).

No. this is like skipping ads on a VCR. It's my computer and I should be able to do whatever I want on it, including blocking all ads that I can. If Google has a problem monetising their video business when I do that, perhaps they need a different business model, instead of forcing these ads down my throat.

You make it seem like steeling hard earned revenue from Google. In reality people are just punishing Google for shady business practices.

It's a natural consequence of being an ad monopoly combined with an online video monopoly.

Sometimes I go to the grocery store and read the paper for 10 minutes without paying. Straight to jail? These companies have plenty of money where they don't need to be scraping the barrel like this. Sucks for them I guess that they work in a space where people have general purpose computers to interface with their content, because that means workarounds and such are just going to be a fact of life if they make the user experience something worth spending time to circumvent.

Users are accustomed to using ad blockers. You cannot browse the web without them. Default behavior is king.

YouTube operated like that for a very long time and customers were accustomed to receiving service without any problem. Now the service is being downgraded and customers are unhappy.

This is not being entitled. That is being accustomed to.

Some videos on youtube might be worth my time, but may not be worth my money. Since rules on subscription changes, my decision do also.

The bandwidth argument doesn't fly. I already pay for my bandwidth. You already pay for yours. I don't pay for yours and you don't pay for mine. Why do we have to pay for YouTube's? If YouTube is finding their bandwidth costs are too high then they should renegotiate their deals and peering agreements etc. They almost certainly already get a much better deal on bandwidth than you or me.

This way bandwidth costs would be paid for by the people actually using it, ie. the users.

Running the service as a loss and expecting to recoup it via advertising is a broken business model. Loss leaders always lead to consumer dissatisfaction. People should just pay for what they use.

I do not believe in "unlimited bandwidth" ISP deals. Nothing is unlimited. I want to pay for what I use. This is not entitlement.

It's not my fault they've chosen a broken business model. If I could get the content elsewhere I certainly would. They've used anti-competitive practices to ensure YouTube is the most popular platform for new media. I will not have ads in my own home and I will not pay into one specific monopoly. That's not how the web works.

You are entitled to try to block ads (and I do, myself). They are entitled to try to not serve you content if you do so without paying. To the winner goes the spoils, I guess.

Sure, but that also doesn't fit their business model. They wouldn't retain their monopoly if it wasn't free at the point of use. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm more than happy to pay for bandwidth, storage, electricity etc. and I do. It's up to them to make this work for them, not me. A peer-to-peer model would solve a lot of their cost problems.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com