• EmoBean@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I can’t wait to find out how much YouTube is going to sue me for in 2025 for 20 years of blocked ad revenue. They’re going to use 2005 Napster math. You didn’t watch 3 ads per video x 6,000,000 played videos = $2 million lost revenue, pay up citizen, your Google services have been disabled, all location and behavior data is in possession of Alphabet Debt Collection, you cannot run, you cannot hide.

  • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    The entire fucking web worked with no ads for literally years. I do not feel bad, and won’t lament if companies can’t afford to pay people to cram even more JavaScript into web pages.

    Sorry, web developers. Your masters are making you do evil things. It isn’t your fault, but I hate your jobs.

    • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      There were less than 200 websites in 1993 when the first paid ad was introduced shortly thereafter. There were over 100k websites by the end of 1995.

      So you’re kind of right, but ads have been part of the Internet for 30 years. And half of the internet that we know today wouldn’t have survived if this wasn’t the case.

        • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I concur. There’s a sweet spot for ads where they are mostly tolerable. We haven’t been in it for a long time though.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        FOR YEARS!

        August 1991 the web was made available to CERN, 1993 was the year it truly became open to the public and ads were introduced the same year…

        I mean, I guess they were technically right? But it’s the same as the “cable didn’t have ads” bullshit people keep saying…

      • Geek_King@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think the difference was, they were just side banners and that’s it. They didn’t have all this insane tracking, data analysis, metrics, and knowing everything about you bullshit they do now.

    • henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 months ago

      It’s probably worth noting that this has a lot to do with VCs pumping in a seemingly unlimited amount of funding for services that aren’t profitable yet but has potential to be later. Hence why Twitter is still a thing despite running at a loss for almost its entire lifetime.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Well, if you don’t mind losing all online content that’s more than a couple mb in size then sure, what you’re saying makes sense… Safely hosting over 1 billion videos costs money and people don’t want to pay for it directly so…

      • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Tens of millions of people can and do pay. This isn’t about covering costs, this is about making line go up faster than last year, every year, no matter what.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          And there’s even more people that don’t…

          80m premium subscribers, 2.7b monthly users… Do you really think that’s sustainable without having a secondary source of revenue? Because I don’t know that many businesses that survive from 3% paying customers…

          That’s just for YouTube, but there are other websites that host content that wouldn’t be sustainable without ads and that would need to switch to a paid subscription format.

          Is it so hard to admit that there’s something unusual about expecting websites to run out of the pocket of the owners/employees when we don’t expect real world businesses to do so?

          • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            Do you really think that’s sustainable

            At $15 a month? Yeah totally. The vast majority of that 2.7 billion probably cost a few cents at most to offer service to. Very few people actually upload anything and streaming video is way cheaper than the various streaming services would have you believe. It’s expensive to get off the ground, sure, but it scales well.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              Repeat after me, Google isn’t the only provider that hosts a lot of content.

              Would you like it if the majority of websites became pay per use or subscription only?

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Excuse me but I’m entitled to a sliver of your spongy grey matter because I spent money. /s

  • Touching_Grass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    What about Mr beast and moist critikal how will they feed their children. Think of the YouTube’s you monster.

    Look at moist consuming his once a day meal.

  • hh93@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    11 months ago

    Better yet:

    Use use adnauseam and fuck up their ad-tracking infrastructure beyond just blocking the ads