This right here is why we adblock. Google needs to wake up and do something if they really want to stop people from using adblocks on Youtube, or their other properties.
Really we need some body like the UK ASA to say "you're liable for all these frauds, Google".
If advertising providers were de jure and de facto liable for fraud, then that will raise the bar for competing advertising providers, as if Google wasn't enough of a monopoly.
Regulation almost universally benefits established players and stifles competition, which is why a lot of regulation is (secretly) backed by large companies. (Note that I'm not saying that regulation never hurts large companies, and regulation can hurt both large companies and small companies/society.)
Such a weird take.. without regulation we would still have child labor, slave labor, cancer causing shit in basically everything, no seatbelts, even worse corruption in politics and companies, .. list goes on ..
We don't have to be on the side of 100% regulation is good but I hope we can see that a lot of regulation is actually making the world we live in liveable.
Seems like the internet ad industry wants scale, but doesn't want to solve the problems of scale.
e.g. https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/person-s--unknown-a23-1198241...
Enforcement is very limited to "misleading ad must not appear again". Eventually they'll have to do something a bit toothier or we're going to have an all-scam internet.
Youtube only got to where it is now by Google plowing billions of dollars from a different monopoly into it. Most of the other major "free" consumer tech products gained their market share by burning way more money than most competitors could afford.
There are YouTube channels i watch, but it's just a fun distraction. If they went away I'm not sure I would care that much. The educational stuff is handy, but that is all out there in different forms on the web anyway.
I'd like to be wrong, but so far the ad model is the best business model for such content.
I signed up for Kagi search recently (I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a satisfied customer), and aside from searching reddit, I consider their results to be superior to Google's. One of their main signals for downranking is how heavily ad/tracker-laden a page is.
Google wins as long as the viewers don't leave.
why do you consider this massively overpriced? 55% of it i believe goes to content creators and they make more from a subscription watch then an ad supported watch.
Because i struggle to imagine the ads i watch would amount to $15/m. So it feels like significant markup.
A flat rate seems either upcharging, or subsidizing. Neither feel good as a consumer.
I rather (and have) quit than pay them $15/m for a handful of ads. They started fighting a month back or w/e and i just stopped watching them for ~2 weeks. When i tried later, the "problem" was gone lol. Not sure what happened.
I'd much rather pay for a platform that gives money to creators more directly. I pay for a fair share of things on Patreon, for example.
edit: I should note, my assumptions on price are based on how little ad views net in value.
55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views.
Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes
I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.
Au contraire, it's very likely that it's not a coincidence.
The internet is just a medium, and Facebook / YouTube are just mass platforms filled with people who click on these ads.
But YouTube specifically has built-in segmentation that allows to skip this whole cesspit, it is called YouTube Premium. Same way you would skip yellow papers at kiosk and spend money on better press twenty years ago. (afaik Facebook was recently forced to introduce similar [half-baked] subscription model due to local EU regulations.)
(yes, I know content providers can still embed their own promotions into their videos).
When I dropped cable I started subscribing to dozens of channels and now have a pretty solid subscription list.
Many creators I follow have dabbled in different forms of monetization, and I've preferred to stick with the ones that offer patterns or other methods of supporting them.
I don't think it's fair to criticize googles product offering for the content creators choices
No, it serves the content without adding more ads of its own.
> You can choose to subscribe to authors that do not place ads or sponsored content in their videos.
If not consuming the content I wanted is a solution, I can just solve all the problems by not using youtube. That's not really a solution.
For everything else, use SponsorBlock! (Crowdsourced auto-skip YouTube for annoying in-video adverts)
Looks like Google benefits by allowing scammy ads...