Hacker News Reader

Comment by PurestGuava | Hacker News Reader

You're trading your attention for entertainment you don't otherwise have to pay for.

Not true, cable TV runs ads and costs money. Many sports channels cost money in a cable package and still have ads. The *paid* Netflix plans have ads now.

It’s pretty clear that companies can’t stop salivating over how lucrative ads are, and will continue to shove ads down our throats inside of paid products as long as we live.

OK, but we're very specifically discussing YouTube here, which as discussed, you don't have to pay for; but if you do, you don't see ads.

Except, you do.

https://www.howtogeek.com/more-ads-are-coming-to-youtube-pre...

Clearly they are referring to the ad-free plan, not the cheaper ad-subsidized plan.

If you do, you don’t see pre-roll and mid-roll ads. You still see embedded ads, sponsor mentions, “all the tools we used are linked below”, etc.

That's on the video creator, not YouTube. Just tell them to stop or you won't watch their videos anymore.

...for now. But I do wonder how well this statement will age.

All of the people commenting on this thread will be dead and buried one day. That's how well all of this will age.

Society used to have the wisdom to plant trees for its children to sit under. On the whole I think I like that attitude a lot better than this "apres moi, le deluge" thinking we see so much of now.

Ad subsidized is not the same as ad free.

Many hybrid products/services exist to lower costs by taking on some ads. The low tier Netflix plans and $200 smart TVs are examples of this.

Sports TV is just a monopolist scam though.

You do in the end because you're buying the products that are funding the ads.

Would we have to pay for the cat videos and other things people currently share on youtube because it's the dominant platform. The creators of these are generally not paid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com