Where does the profit come from if someone who doesn’t deal with ads is forced to watch an ad?
The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It's among the most studied economic fields. There's a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I'm immune to ads but I know I'm not.
Data-invasive, targeted advertising is superfluous and needs to die.
I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.
Targeted or not - I'm not going to watch ads. If it's a bad service like Instagram I'm just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I'm going to buy premium. I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I'm effectively stealing.
No, I don't think hating on fascists is the same but that assumes we're speaking of actual fascists instead of more or less normal people who happen to lean right and get called fascists because it's an easy label to throw at someone because we don't like them and they're making noises that remotely sound like something a fascist would make. It's equivalent to the right calling someone a communist for advocating for things like UBI or higher taxes for the wealthy.
People like Elon Musk gets called a nazi here daily. I don't care how much one hates him, that's just a blatantly false accusation but it gets the upvotes because what they're essentially saying is "boo Elon" and that's something most Lemmings agree with. This just dillutes the meaning of these labels to the point that people then are sceptical even when they're used appropriately.
It's not about loving your enemy. Atleast not in my case. I'm only trying to remind people that groups consist of individuals and no two of them are the same. I don't like how both sides so dishonestly represent eachother's views on social media and use these extreme labels so lightly. I think in most things in life the truth is somwehere in the middle so wether it be left or right, the further one goes in that direction the more likely they're to be at the wrong side of history. I'll much rather trust the judgement of someone who whose beliefs are such a mixed bag that they're near impossible to place on the political spectrum.
I'm also just rambling here now. I don't even remember what we were talking about anymore.
There's no scarcity of hate on Lemmy either. It simply flies under the radar for most part because it's directed at things we hate too. Exactly as is the case on far-right forums as well. Just read the comments of any thread about Elon, Police, Ai, Facebook, Twitter, Capitalism, Israel and so on. You even admit participating in it yourself.
The far-right thinks of themselves as well meaning just as well. Nobody thinks of themselves as the bad guys. Claiming they intend to be hateful and evil is disingenuine. That's only how you view them. Their view of us is hardly any different. Both views are wrong.
I mean you signed up on lemmy.marxism-leninism. Yeah they tend to lean left, lol.
But yeah your observation indeed is is correct. Not only does lemmy lean left it often leans pretty far left too. It might feel like a breathe of fresh air but it's still a bubble and echo chamber. It's the same as truth social but the exact opposite. Nothing wrong with that per-se but it's a good thing to keep in mind. Factual information is regularly downvoted here not because it's false but because it doesn't fit the narrative.
I'm not informed enough to know how peertube works but running it is not free either. Nor is running a lemmy instance. Lemm.ee for example has a limit even on the size of images you can upload despite the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude less bandwith and storage requiring than videos.
Ad-revenue is literally how content creators get paid. If you're using an adblocker (like me) then you're freeriding. They're not getting any money from us viewing their videos.
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch ads. That's the alternative available to people who don't want to pay. The other alternative is premium membership. Which ever you choose makes money for the creators. Blocking ads doesn't.
I hate ads just as much as the next guy but this mentality of expecting to get content for free is ridiculous. That's unbelieveably narrow sighted and self-centered thinking. If subscribtion based business model was the norm instead of ads-based then we'd have none of the issues that come with targeted advertising. On the other hand if one thinks google is evil company and don't want to give them money then stop using their products. Damn hypocrites..
Content creators get nothing from a subscription To YouTube premium.
This is not true. If you're a free user they're getting a share of the ad-revenue. If you're a premium user they're getting share of the membership fee. The more videos you watch from a creator the more they earn.
Also. Do you have any idea how expensive it is to run a video hosting platform? Especially at the scale of YouTube. There's a good reason Lemmy doesn't have videos.
The fact that you use their services despite claiming to oppose them probably tells more about how you really feel than your words do. You're benefiting from their abusive business model the same whey they themselves are. Justifying the continued use of their services by not paying is just a cope to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
I'll buy premium when they finally manage to either prevent adblocking entirely or make it sufficiently inconvenient. Stopping using YouTube is not an option for me and neither is watching ads. YouTube (along with porn) is the internet for me. If I'm not viewing either content, I'm probably not on my computer.
Hell, I don't even blame them. I can't morally justify blocking ads and viewing their content for free. I do it because it's easy and I get away with it. I don't believe in ads-based business model and that basically leaves subscribtion as the only viable alternative. Not paying and still using the service isn't exactly practicing what I preach.
That's what SponsorBlock already does. It however doesn't detect the sponsor but instead it jumps over a part of the video marked with timestamp but with different people seeing different lenght ads, these timestamps no-longer match.
Nothing in that indicates he has gone "full MAGA" Even the article about him rather voting for Trump seems to focus more on Joe's praise of Bernie Sanders.
He's basically saying that old age is affecting the mental capabilities of Biden more that Trump and given only these two options he'd rather vote for Trump who he then also called "crazy and a sociopath". I don't agree with the conclusion but I agree with the claim he's making; Biden's mental capabilities are clearly deteriorating at much faster pace that Trump. Neither of those two are fit for the job in my opinion.
I just find it hilarious that people treat Joe as if he is some full blood concervative when he has voted democrat or independent his whole life and by most of his values would be labeled as liberal.
The creator gets paid for people watching the ads, not for buying the product. For the most part the point of ads is to increase brand recognition which in turn increases sales. Ads work wether you think they do or not. It's among the most studied economic fields. There's a good reason companies spend a ton of money on advertising. More people seeing ads = more sales. I too like to tell myself a story about how I'm immune to ads but I know I'm not.
I agree. The alternative is paying for the service eg. subscribtion based business model.
Targeted or not - I'm not going to watch ads. If it's a bad service like Instagram I'm just going to stop using it but in the case of YouTube if they manage to make adblocking sufficiently difficult and inconvenient then I'm going to buy premium. I can't blame them for wanting to get rid of freeriders. If I was them I would probably want to too. Blocking ads is like piracy; I participate in it but it cannot be morally justified. I'm effectively stealing.