Hacker News Reader

Comment by sourcecodeplz | Hacker News Reader

I don't get it. They host the videos for you, why shouldn't they recoup their hosting/traffic costs somehow?

Scammy? Evil? Damn...

I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s. If they don't want freeloaders then make it subscribe only service. They leech data from us freeloaders why wouldn't we leech hosting resources from them?

> I didn't agree to have ads from X or Y company roll before my video/s

Maybe read terms and condition before loading videos on youtube?

Guess what? They change their TOS constantly meaning; I agreed to the initial TOS but I didn't agree to the subsequent ones. You can argue, "Yes you did, you clicked that agree button and you kept using it". Yes I did but only because they have the biggest video community on the internet, which means the biggest content offering and the biggest reach. If there was decent competitor, I would move immediately.

Spoiler: A competitor would be just as shitty to you. No one wants to cater to people who think showing ads to support the costs is "evil and scammy".

Actually, vid.me did want to cater to people to you. And guess what happened? They went bankrupt once their VC cash was all burned up.

Read my op; I said showing ads on non-partnered channels is evil and scammy not ads overall. As a matter of fact I watch ads on my YouTube mobile native Android app.

All I want to say is; if I have a small channel and if I am a small/hobbyist content creator, please don't show ads on my content because I didn't explicitly agree to it.

Well you can go ahead an make a video host that provides free bandwidth and service to people who "don't explicitly agree to show ads".

It will be extremely popular, and you will become very...broke.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com