I watch plenty of YouTube, so I get the attraction. But at the same time that's basically like saying your favorite ketchup brand has a monopoly on ketchup just because it's your favorite. You have the power to switch ketchup brands, very easily actually, and you also have the power to watch other content on other platforms. I think talking about YouTube like it's a monopoly is actually empowering to Google. They want you to think it's a monopoly.
ISPs mostly aren't public utilities, so none of that applies to them. Taxes generally don't go to them. They're no more public utilities or tax funded than a company that would come to your house and cut your grass.
It is true that several times in the last few decades the government has handed ISPs some cash in exchange for doing specific things like expanding service to certain areas. It's more than justified to be mad at them for not holding up their end. That doesn't make them public utilities, though. The government deserves a bunch of blame for that, too, because it's stupid and handed a bunch of private companies a bunch of money with no accountability mechanism. Of course they're gonna take the money and run.
That's why I'm saying stop trusting the government to fix things like this.
They can only strike it down as unconstitutional or something, they can't just say they don't like it. I'm not sure what grounds they could even try to strike it down on. Congress has changed the rules about stuff like this and the Supreme Court before.
I think what they were saying is that the law specifically makes exceptions for things that are necessary. Others are saying ads are not necessary per the law's definition, but that's a separate issue.
I think it's awesome that some people would create awesome things just for the love of creation and of sharing it with other people. However, I think we all know that the vast majority of current creators would not create if they couldn't make money from it anymore. Do we really want that world?
That's all a bit separate from the YouTube ads conversation, more about money in entertainment more broadly.
When you say YouTube crested a monopoly, what do you mean? There are tons of video hosting and streaming websites. Basically all social media platforms have video now, as well.
PeerTube needs a better way to monetize videos, I think. I know the Fediverse and FOSS community is generally against paying for things like content, but the fact is that most content creators aren't gonna create for free.
Are you arguing people should only try to be correct when it benefits a poor person? When being correct benefits a rich person we should just lie about the truth?
They'd argue that you going to their page which you know is sustained by ads is consent enough to check whether you're using ad block. It's an implicit thing, like how when you go to a restaurant you're implying that you're going to pay the bill afterward. You can't eat and then leave saying, "well technically I never explicitly agreed to pay for this meal, it's your fault for not asking before serving me."
What would you all say if I started an ISP that offered $3 a month for service only to a handful of websites? That would be prohibited under Net Neutrality, yet I could see something like that being useful to plenty of people, like my grandparents who use the Internet only to send emails and check their local news.
Whose quote is this?