When you block ads on YouTube, the ads are deleted. This has the problem of not giving creators money, forcing you to actually spend $10/mo or whatever the average Patreon subscription is. What if there was an option for an ad to play in the background while a black rectangle covers the screen while temporarily muting the browser tab? (Since the ad still plays in the background, the creator still gets money, allowing you to be a freeloader) edit: peertube has no ads

  • tkoA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Respectfully, if you can’t afford something, then you shouldn’t consume it. Ads are a nice way for creators to get paid for the time they put into creating the thing without requiring their customers to actually fork out money. If you don’t want to fork out money AND you don’t want to watch ads, then you need to just not consume that media. Anything else is not fair to the content creator.

    • JonDorfman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say the situation is unfair to all parties involved. No matter what someone loses. If the viewer watches the ad, the ad buyer does not receive a return on investment. If the viewer blocks the ad, the content creator is not compensated. If the viewer choses to not watch videos at all, they miss out on whatever benefits the video would have provided.

      • tkoA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure I follow what you mean by “If the viewer watches the ad, the ad buyer does not receive a return on investment.” Doesn’t the ad buyer want the viewer to watch the ad?

        In any case, my comment was in the context of the OP, which is specifically concerned about the creator making money. If you care about the creator making money (and you should), then you have to either watch ads or pay them directly (via patreon, e.g.).

        I have to admit that I have a sore spot for this subject. I believe (at least in America) that people are far too comfortable with the idea that we should be able to consume art for free. Obviously paying less is better than paying more from a personal finance perspective (and paying nothing is best!). However, it’s quite clear that the distribution platforms are more interested in making a profit than they are in compensating creators fairly (some are better than others, of course). If the distribution platforms are stiffing the creators, and the consumers are paying little or nothing, then it’s the creator left with the short end of the stick.

        Generally speaking, creators just want their creations to be seen/heard because they care MOST about the art, not the money. Unfortunately, this often leaves them making less than they deserve for the value they create. Who benefits from this price/value disparity? The distribution platforms. I think if most people thought about this arrangement for a little bit, they would probably prefer that the creator gets more money and the distribution platforms get less.

        However, I don’t think that’s the whole story. Distribution platforms need to make some money to cover the expenses of running the platform. I think it’s entirely likely that the cost paid (via ad impressions) doesn’t actually cover the TOTAL expense of paying the distribution platform overhead AS WELL AS fairly compensating the creator.

        All that is to say, when you think about art in a producer/consumer context, it makes the most economic sense for the consumer to pay the producer. This circles back to my original premise: people are far too comfortable with the idea that we should be able to consume art for free. If we could get ourselves into the mindset that art is valuable and therefore should cost some money, I think we’d have a much more vibrant art culture.

      • tkoA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sorry, I’m not understanding what you’re trying to say. Your original post made it clear that you wanted to support the creators, so what’s the involuntary charity you’re referring to?

          • tkoA
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            But your proposed solution doesn’t change anything about how much money Google makes… they will still charge the ad buyer for the impression, and they will still pay the creator. The only party losing out is the ad buyer, right?