tuxed

1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough so that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

1. That happens whether you’re subscribed or not.
2. Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.

It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.

Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.

Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.

Good point

For mobile games there is Shattered Pixel Dungeon, great time sink

Thanks, haven’t regretted having eyes since joining lemmy but you checked that off the list real quick

For new users this isn’t really a problem though, but I agree with the sentiment