> It’s a view counter. People want to know how much it was watched

That's emphatically not what people "people want". People want to get paid. And creators get paid based on views.

So... per the upthread point, paying people based on views that actually generate revenue seems fairer and more optimal, no? If YouTube can't make money from your content, why do you expect them to pay you for it?

▲

Mond_ 4 days ago | parent [-]

> That's emphatically not what people "people want". People want to get paid. And creators get paid based on views.

That's nonsense, as a viewer of YouTube videos I do not expect to her paid for this.

I guess it'd be nice if I were paid for watching YouTube, so maybe you have a point after all! :-)

	▲	ajross 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's deliberately misinterpreting. The overwhelming criticism of this view count regression kerfuffle was centered around creators and the lost revenue: YouTube was pervasively accused of cooking numbers to stiff their creators. No one anywhere was arguing from the perspective of a viewer. Until it turned out that the regression was due to an adblocker change. Now suddenly creators don't matter and it's really the viewer's visibility into view counts that is the important element. And that seems... insincere.