On your watch-time? I mean then it’s cool, cause you don’t even have to do anything. On the other hand I would probably have to log out to watch content I don’t want to support financially.
Tracking != taking all of your data and selling it for profit. That’s what Google does with YouTube, even if you pay for premium. So I see no reason to pay for it.
Not to mention a premium sub costs more than most streaming services out there, including double the price of lots of Plex shares that have thousands of movies and shows to watch.
I don’t understand the Google selling data argument. I thought Google was an ad broker. Someone goes to Google and says I want to play ads on YouTube for my awesome baking book, play it for people who are into baking.
YouTube has the watch history of people and is able to tell who watches a lot of baking content.
That’s not selling data to someone in my books as the advertiser does not receive any personal details about the people where the ad is played. He is just buying impressions. Or am I missing something?
Imo it should be a choice whether we are tracked for monetary gains or not, and not a necessary evil. But with most basic services/devices you are not even presented with that choice. E.g. when buying a phone.
And if you do have a choice, sometimes accessibility is restricted so much that you can’t participate in our networked society.
I think we have to find ways to provide access to the most basic services with a minimum of tracking. Anything else should still be an option of course.
How to achieve this? I don’t know. But EU regulations certainly wouldn’t hurt for now.
It really boils down to a few reasons:
I didn’t know the channels get some of the revenue. Do you get to influence who the money goes to? Like a twitch prime sub?
I’m not entirely certain, but as far as I’m aware it is divided based on watch-time.
On your watch-time? I mean then it’s cool, cause you don’t even have to do anything. On the other hand I would probably have to log out to watch content I don’t want to support financially.
It replaces the ad revenue the channel would otherwise have gotten from your view, at a higher rate than an ad impression.
Thanks
You pay and you’re still the product, they continue with all the tracking they do.
If you don’t want to be tracked, you shouldn’t own a smartphone.
Because let’s face it, you’re never going to be able to stop it unless you get rid of all your tech.
Tracking != taking all of your data and selling it for profit. That’s what Google does with YouTube, even if you pay for premium. So I see no reason to pay for it.
Not to mention a premium sub costs more than most streaming services out there, including double the price of lots of Plex shares that have thousands of movies and shows to watch.
I don’t understand the Google selling data argument. I thought Google was an ad broker. Someone goes to Google and says I want to play ads on YouTube for my awesome baking book, play it for people who are into baking. YouTube has the watch history of people and is able to tell who watches a lot of baking content. That’s not selling data to someone in my books as the advertiser does not receive any personal details about the people where the ad is played. He is just buying impressions. Or am I missing something?
Imo it should be a choice whether we are tracked for monetary gains or not, and not a necessary evil. But with most basic services/devices you are not even presented with that choice. E.g. when buying a phone.
And if you do have a choice, sometimes accessibility is restricted so much that you can’t participate in our networked society.
I think we have to find ways to provide access to the most basic services with a minimum of tracking. Anything else should still be an option of course.
How to achieve this? I don’t know. But EU regulations certainly wouldn’t hurt for now.