Hacker News Reader

>Then you're watching the wrong videos.

Re-read the sentence you're replying to. "99% of videos on youtube", not "99% of videos I watch".

>You can easily skip these, not sure what the issue is here.

You can also ad-block. The issue is that even paying for YouTube isn't enough to not see any ads on YouTube.

>Additionally, there has never been a greater investment made on storing and distributing video like the one Google made on YouTube.

YouTube merely provides the logistical support. It's not a production company. That is, it doesn't seek out talent to produce content for it. This is the difference the GP is highlighting.

> "99% of videos on youtube", not "99% of videos I watch".

And in the context, this is even less sensible. 99% of content on Netflix is what "you" don't watch. So there's literally no difference on that point for YT and Netflix.

> The issue is that even paying for YouTube isn't enough to not see any ads on YouTube.

Native ads are skippable and are already providing revenue for the creator - skipping them doesn't affect creator's income. Ad-block screws over the creators. There's a difference...

> YouTube merely provides the logistical support.

Have you ever worked at a production company? Because providing legal, logistical and marketing support is also what production companies do - that is what YouTube provides to creators. If you apply the same logic, then Universal Media Group isn't a production company - because they also primarily provide those functions.

Not to mention that YouTube has produced, may even still produce, original content.

>99% of content on Netflix is what "you" don't watch.

"I don't watch this" and "I would never watch this under any circumstance" are different.

>Have you ever worked at a production company? Because providing legal, logistical and marketing support is also what production companies do - that is what YouTube provides to creators. If you apply the same logic, then Universal Media Group isn't a production company - because they also primarily provide those functions.

What you're saying is that production companies provide logistics, and YouTube provides logistics, therefore YouTube is a production company. Socrates is a man, and I am a man, therefore I am Socrates.

>Not to mention that YouTube has produced, may even still produce, original content.

Sure. But the vast majority of the content that drives traffic to YouTube is not produced by them.

> "I don't watch this" and "I would never watch this under any circumstance" are different.

OK. How is this even relevant. Both YouTube and Netflix have easily over 90% of content that "I would never watch under any circumstance"(which is already a false statement on your part).

> What you're saying is that production companies provide logistics

Way to ignore literally everything else I wrote.

> But the vast majority of the content that drives traffic to YouTube is not produced by them.

Same goes for Netflix

When you move the goalpost, make sure that where you move it supports your argument.

No hate, I simply can understand why paying for youtube feels different from paying for netflix. These are not some bulletprof arguments why nobody should pay money, it's just why I personally can feel it's different than paid content provider/producer.

>You're basically restricted to the tastes of Netflix's buyers.

Same as going to the cinema. I don't expect to see 5 minutes of figuring out camera settings and 2 hours of black screen. I completely miss how it's not a feature. At the same time I support variety and experiments with a content of any kind, it's just not that.

>You can easily skip these, not sure what the issue is here.

No issue. I use sponsorblock as I mentioned, so no manual intervention required. Why do I have to do it though.

>all change their inventory frequently due to licensing. It wasn't long ago that you could watch Sopranos on Amazon.

Did you know they announced removal of Sopranos beforehand? You could make an informed decision given a warning.

>it's a problem with the US legal system.

No it's not. But thank you for a perfect counter.

>YouTube has created tons of wealth for creators and has cut out tons of the usual Hollywood intermediaries.

Fair enough, there is some service being provided by youtube. They basically made all the content on platform possible.

>Additionally, there has never been a greater investment made on storing and distributing video like the one Google made on YouTube.

This wasn't a charity.

You can feel whatever you want, your rationalizations are wrong though.

And if someone uses false rationalizations to use ad-blockers, while claiming to support the content creators - I can only sense hypocrisy and entitlement.

It's a repeat of the long ago years when piracy and torrents were more popular. And people pretended that stealing movies was somehow ethical.

People will always justify a way to steal, when they can get away with it.

- they could simply not watch YouTube if the content is "99% not worth watching"

- they could pay to watch the content

- they could pay the creator on their patreons, and watch there

Be comfortable stealing and saying that it's stealing. Or pay with your ads / money. The hypocrisy is stealing and claiming that YouTube should somehow provide a service for free.

I think the DMCA issue is a problem with both the US legal system and YouTube. A big part of it is the fact that YouTube makes it way too easy for supposed rightsholders to automatically DMCA any videos they want, and don't provide a reasonable process for clearing false claims. Their own system for detecting things like copyrighted music also makes no attempt to account for fair use, treating even a 5 second snippet of a popular song as if it was the whole thing.

> This is your best one, YouTube has created tons of wealth for creators and has cut out tons of the usual Hollywood intermediaries. Additionally, there has never been a greater investment made on storing and distributing video like the one Google made on YouTube.

Patently not true. Most of the big YT channels these days have sponsors or controlling orgs. Often own wholely or partly by the big dogs.

For example a lot of "gun-tube" channels are owned or work under the Leviathan Group. https://www.leviathangroupllc.com/

Plenty of others like that, e.g. Take 5 Media Group , Wake Up , and INNOCEAN, etc.

There are certainly individual contributors, but if you think most of the big channels aren't 100% owned and operated you're being played.

And in their defense, there is just a lot of dross on YT; allowing anyone to upload anything means 90% of it is crap. Netflix's buyers may have a specific set of tastes, but I don't have to sort through reams of poorly edited memes & reaction videos.