YouTube has control of their platform. They have enough control to detect and demonetize people when they say such "harmful" and "dangerous" words as "kill" and "sex". This is further evidenced by the fact that they provide the sponsored segment skip feature that you reference[0]. They know this is going on and they allow it, despite it ruining the service that members pay for.

If content creators can't live off of the ad revenue that YouTube offers, then that is another thing to lump the blame of at the feet of YouTube. They not only turn a blind eye to content creators ruining the service I pay for, YouTube is the one themselves who has created the conditions in which the content creator feels the need to pursue external advertising.

There is obvioulsy enough advertising money in the world to support both YouTube and content creators, because that is exactly what is happening right now: advertisers are paying either YouTube or the content creator directly. For some reason, a lot of content creators can't make it by just working with YouTube, despite there being enough advertiser demand for it. That tells me that YouTube is being stingy.

[0] Which, BTW, many content creators are not properly marking up their videos to allow for the skip feature to work.

▲

WarmWash 6 hours ago | parent [-]

First off the content creators don't mark up where sponsored segments are, the algo builds on statistics of where people skip. So if a video is fresh, it might not work.

Second, you are capable of building a coherent argument, but left out that almost half of viewers don't pay. When you are a child, paying for things is frustrating and annoying, so the ones taking the money are bad. When you grow up, you realize that everything costs money to everyone, and taking money isn't really nefarious, and paying for what you consume is just honest. If you don't like the cost of something, you don't buy it. If you like the cost, you pay and it's yours.

Obviously you have passed that threshold of reasoning, so it might be worthwhile to rebalance your argument around the fact that almost half (30-50%) of viewers still feel entitled to free viewing of content. They don't boycott it, they still consume it, but they don't compensate. That leaves the honest ones to bear the cost of their consumption.

▲

rdiddly 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"You pay and it's yours." Which is exactly why, having paid for an ad-free service, people are miffed when ads appear anyway. I'm not going to take on the responsibility of educating you as to the examples that exist, because that's your own responsibility. Not only because we have to educate ourselves, but because you made the unsupported claim in the first place that the phenomenon doesn't exist. Proving a negative is very difficult, as we with all this glorious mental firepower know. In a world this large, it's a poor bet on a statistical basis alone.

▲

WarmWash 4 hours ago | parent [-]

No one will ever be able to help the people who have an aneurysm when a Toyota logo is visible on the steering wheel of the protagonists car.

	▲	ndriscoll 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What is your point here? Yes, if I were to pay for a movie or show, I would find it unacceptable if it were to contain paid product placement. Do you think prominent logos in media are an accident? And youtube could easily ban third party sponsors in their ToS, have all advertising on their platform go through them, and completely remove it for paying customers. Just like Netflix can refuse to host any shows with product placement. It's entirely their own product decision to allow ads in their "ad free" offering.

▲

moron4hire 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I can do without the condescending attitude. I caught it the first time but tried to give you the benefit of doubt. I didn't do anything to you.