Hacker News Reader

Comment by soulofmischief | Hacker News Reader

This argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. YouTube employs an ad model to pay creators, and tools like NewPipe and ad blockers (which I myself use, for good reason) circumvent this process. To not supplement it with alternative is to disrespect the time and energy required to make a video.

Some content is relatively cheap to produce, be it vlog format or whatever. And some creators don't care about compensation because they have existing revenue sources. But many creators do this full-time and depend on generating an income stream from their hard work. The rule of thumb is an hour of work per minute of video for many creators.

It is a matter of ethical consumption, which yes, you are not obligated to adhere to. But you should consider your consumption habits and review whether you are being fair to the people who work hard to inform or entertain you.

View on HN

YouTube pays contributors a tiny fraction of their ad revenue in order to make more ad revenue. Sponsors pay them to include their products.

So yes, it does hold up to scrutiny. YouTube and sponsors are paying them. I am not obligated, ethically or otherwise, to watch adverts.

That makes zero sense. Most creators don't get significant sponsorship money. And they don't get paid for ads that aren't seen.

You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations simply by saying you don't have them. Just be honest with yourself in that you like to exploit the time and energy of creators for your own entertainment without compensating them in some form. That's fine. But the ethics of the situation are much more nuanced than you choose to believe.

It makes all the sense. There is no subscription fee. There is no premise nor expectation of payment by the viewer. They get paid as a consequence of people viewing, ahead of time by sponsors, or as a payment in lieu by ad monetisation - or if lucky/good enough voluntary donations. Keyword voluntary. This expectation of donorship is a recent fad that is just banal and asinine at the same time.

By extension do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised because they have incurred the expense to buy the ad space and/or sponsorship?

> This expectation of donorship is a recent fad

Actually, patronage was the default form of compensation for the arts during most of human history. You should question your world view.

> do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised

Irrelevant to the conversation, let's dispense with straw man arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

The expectation (that every singke viewer is obliged) is the recent fad, not the concept of donations. Are you deliberately obtuse or just incapable of distinguishing the two?

Not irrelevant nor a stawman, but does show the fault in your argument. Somewhat ironic of you to accuse that given the above. Oh well.

When at any point have I expressed that every single viewer is obliged to pay for the media they consume? I have not, and that is another straw man. I only pointed out that the ethics are much more nuanced than you are willing to accept.

At this point you are being disingenuous as well as devolving into insults, so I will end this discussion here. Please use good faith when engaging in discussions on this platform.

> You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations

Forming an argument with the unfounded pretense that everyone is obliged to donate is somehow not claiming everyone is obliged to donate. Yet somehow I'm the disingenious one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com