[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -4 points 9 months ago

No, I'm not here to defend Alphabet. I'm just saying it's equal to stealing groceries at Wallmart. They request payment, you deny. Just because it's so much easier to do on YouTube doesn't mean it's any more justifiable.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago

Oh baby, you don't understand what you just said, do you?

Nobody forces you to watch ads. Close YouTube, don't look back, email content creators to have em send ad free video links directly to you.

Watching ads is your obligation as consumer, if you decide not to pay for their removal.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -4 points 9 months ago

The nutella butter thing was kind of a meme, bit kf ragebait. It's a shit comparison, on purpose. It's so shit, you should understand my point through that.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -2 points 9 months ago

There's still people doing that. In fact, that's like 90% I'd say.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago

As of now, Lemmy is still quite niche. People wouldn't generate a high, stable income on Lemmy sized platforms. It's fine if it's just for fun, but it's not really viable as a full business.

Streaming platforms that compete with YT conform to most exactly the same conditions. They need some form of income.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -1 points 9 months ago

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -1 points 9 months ago

I think you misunderstood. Them making money trough straight payments AND through ad revenue are both completely fine incomes.

However, there is no morality in denying them both while still benefiting from their goods and services. You'd support my argument if it was about some local busines. For some odd reason this shifts peoples perspecives. Someone offers something and says "hey it's not for free, but I won't actually know if you paid or not" (well YouTube does know, but that's secondary).. It's not right to deny them their pay. There are no consequences to it, but you know that it's not sustainable if everybody thinks like you.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago

Explain how it isn't. If you're happy about removing mid to longform video content from the internet, yeah, whatever mate. I don't think I have an argument to disarm this attack, other than the fact that you stamd with a very small group of people.

If creators decide to use another platform, the other platform will also only exist aslong as people either consume ads or pay money, which, in your argument, wouldn't happen.

If creators decide to create individual small group platforms, have fun in border gore. People will not find nearly as many interesting videos with just curious browsing. Plus, I don't see many creators surciving that. Plus, I don't see many small creators rising in that economy.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -3 points 9 months ago

Homie missed the point. using ublock and sponsorblock is equal to petty theft. Disliking a company doesn't make it morally right to steal from them.

[-] MucherBucher@feddit.de -2 points 11 months ago

China gewinnt halt momentan das 21. Jahrhundert. Ist ja nicht schlimm, die machen zum Teil super Sachen, zum Teil auch super Scheiss, aber das gilt doch für jedes Land.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

MucherBucher

joined 1 year ago