• Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    And as a service provider, they can choose to degrade your experience. It goes both ways.

    • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except they want to send you videos. The power is with you, the viewer. Without you, advertisers will have no reason for buying ads. Google can’t collect your data either. Realise that you have this power. Youtube is not like electricity or clean water. We can live without it if push comes to the shove.

      • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

        • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You have no value to advertisers if they can’t serve you ads. By not doing so, they’ll also cut down on bandwidth costs, so it’s a double positive for them.

          When you take your comment to its logical end though your comment makes no sense, as hence there’s now no one to watch the videos and earn money from them doing so.

          You can’t force someone to consume your content, and if you earn money by people consuming your content, then the power is ultimately with them.

          Plus, all this discussion, we’re assuming that serving ads is the only way that Google can make money off you when watching the videos, which is not true. They can do the same kind of things they do with Gmail and make money from that.

          • cole@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

            • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              this assumption is only correct if EVERYBODY is using as blockers. They aren’t - so it makes sense to cut off the proverbial leeches

              That’s why I said logical conclusion.

              My bet would be the vast majority of people (what you call leeches) would eventually use ad blockers, as people in general usually do not like to watch commercials. (Again, speaking in endgame scenarios, AKA ‘logical conclusion’).