It sounds like you're arguing that YouTube should be free and also ad-free, which makes no sense.

YouTube is expensive to operate. They give me an option of paying by watching ads or paying money. That's much better than my options most other places, which is just to be forced to see ads.

▲

makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'm arguing that youtube should be paid for actual features. For instance membership and super chats are clearly labeled as extra content. Member only content is the same.

You pay for a specific thing that is produced by a creator and provided by Youtube. "Pay to remove the ads we're pushing" is none of that.

On Youtube being free, this is their business choice, and also the way they crush the competition and cement a near monopoly on the market. If it was a public service NGO I'd see it from a different angle, but it's not.

▲

cung 5 days ago | parent [-]

Would you then argue for Youtube to take the Netflix path and not provide non-paying users anything?

▲

makeitdouble 5 days ago | parent [-]

I'd argue that regulators should have a serious look at the effect of Youtube on that specific market, and if the only solution is the Youtube free tier disappearing I'll be fine with it.

We're in a skewed situation with a near monopoly that only companies at the size of Bytedance can challenge, and I'm not sure why we should see the status quo as something to be protected or encouraged.

	▲	jryle70 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> if the only solution is the Youtube free tier disappearing I'll be fine with it. That'd be something most people wouldn't agree with. People always ask for free link anytime a paywalled article posted.