Thread

1. semiquaver · 1789988297 · focus · HN ↗

   Did anyone actually read the linked wiki in full? It’s basically saying “if there are embedded ads in certain live (likely sports) content we carry you may see them even on an ad-free plan because we don’t have an alternative. Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”

   I’m all for consumer awareness but I’m begging everyone to stop freaking out over prosaic non-issues like this.

   1. DonsDiscountGas · 1789992621 · focus · HN ↗

      > Also we might try to promote different tiers of Disney+ itself within the app so to the extent you see that as an ad, that’s an exception to ‘ad-free’”

      Yes I see that as an ad. Do you not? Does anyone not? And if I'm on the highest paying ad free plan, what are they promoting to me?

      1. Gareth321 · 1789993627 · focus · HN ↗

         I strongly agree, and it frustrates me when people and companies claim that advertising their own products "doesn't count." I cancelled my YouTube Premium plan because of ads. These are all the ads they permit on Premium, despite advertising everywhere that Premium removes all ads:

         * Ads in YouTube feeds for other google products and services.

         * Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner.

         * Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.

         * Advertising overlays (supported IN THE APP BY GOOGLE) for products and services from the channel owner.

         * Email advertisements for Google products and services.

         * Community post advertisements from channel owners which show up in the YouTube feed.

         I contacted support to enquire and they state these are not considered advertising.

         1. ApolloFortyNine · 1789996469 · focus · HN ↗

            >* Ads underneath videos for products from the channel owner. > >* Sponsorships within videos from the channel owner.

            I actually agree this is a bit annoying, but also the alternative is Google banning Youtubers from finding their own advertising partners, which I'm sure people would hate.

            1. Gareth321 · 1789997194 · focus · HN ↗

               I'm sure content creators would hate it because they would make less money. Billions of YouTube users around the world would be very happy.

               To be clear, I'm not opposed to the practise, as long as that's clear up front. YouTube advertises Premium as an ad free experience, and in reality it's full of ads.

               1. nephihaha · 1789998317 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'm in favour of people making money from their work. Maybe I'm old fashioned that way. IMDB, Duolingo and Wikipedia have encouraged the model of using unpaid labour.

                  YouTube isn't paying people properly, despite its vast revenues. At least with sponsorship the people themselves make some money.

                  1. Gareth321 · 1789999694 · focus · HN ↗

                     > I'm in favour of people making money from their work.

                     That's completely fair. YouTube offers content creators many ways to do this. For example, they can put content behind a paywall. They can ask for donations. They can ask for memberships. Members get all kinds of fun perks. The part I have an issue with is YouTube advertising an ad free experience with Premium and then allowing content creators to fill their videos with ads.

                     > YouTube isn't paying people properly

                     I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly, and not allowing content creators to shit all over viewers. That's pitting the little guys against each other while Google laughs all the way to the bank.

                     1. johnnyanmac · 1790001049 · focus · HN ↗

                        >I hope we can both agree that the solution to this is YouTube paying people properly

                        The solution is proper competition to google. Because Youtube is pretty much the one true monopoly out there. But as we all know, video hosting alone is very,very, very expensive. It really is something you need to be a billion dollar company to do, and Youtube wasn't profitable until like... 2 years ago?

                        So I tolerate the user ad reads as the best compromise because nothing else would work. I don't think Youtube is a model where Google is being greedy so much as practical. At least not in how it monetizes creators (there's plenty of hostile means they do to creators as is, but the monetary structure seems fine).

                        1. nephihaha · 1790015036 · focus · HN ↗

                           There are alternative streaming platforms, but many of them have become associated with certain political viewpoints.

                           There is also a very limited range of content on Odyssee, Bitchute and all the rest. If you want to find music tutorials for example, you're unlikely to.

                     2. nephihaha · 1790010123 · focus · HN ↗

                        You have to put in a disproportionate amount of work to get anything back. Almost no one makes money off a single video, but instead you make a string of videos and get a following. (The cases of a single video making money are few and far between.)

                        You don't get hourly pay for it, it's vaguely commission based and you do all your own promotion. They can demonetise you at a whim and refuse to pay you (I've seen this happen to craft channels and other content that wasn't remotely controversial.)

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.