• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Yeah. I’m actually okay with paying for a service I use daily. Google does a bunch of evil shit to drive its advertising business, but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

    We can pay with money or we can pay with ads and personal data.

    What I would like to see is a law banning data collection for paid accounts. Because right now Google datarapes you even when you pay.

    • amorangi@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      but the reality is that nothing is free and somebody has to pay somewhere.

      Youtube gained its market share and stopped any competitors arising by offering a free video platform. Now that there isn’t much hope for competition they have enshitified, plastering ads and demanding money. They endured massive loses for years just to kill competition. So boo fucking hoo when I continue using a monopolists products on the terms they originally offered.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Selling personal data at all should just be banned. It says personal right in the name… Giving away free services with forced adds is exploitation in my opinion. The first step to solving the issue is to require everything have a paid option that gets rid of adds and doesn’t sell personal data for additional profit. The hard part with that is preventing them from just setting the price unreasonably high.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’d imagine there’s a point where the money from subscriptions is greater than the money from advertising and data hoarding.

        The “unreasonably high” prices should be self-solving in that context, because the company won’t make more money by selling ads for less than the price of a subscription.

        In fact, in order to justify raising the prices too much they’d have to change more for the ads, which in turn would hurt the ad industry by reducing the ROI in marketing.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Wikipedia isn’t video hosting. The angles of nenual hosting cost for Wikipedia is around 3 million a year. YouTube probably costs nearly as much per hour to keep running.

        500 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. That’s gonna be like 60 terrabytes every hour just in storage space increases.

        If you were to try and host that on a cloud server like AWS the cost would increase millions of dollars every day. Google self-hosted, but it’s still unfathomingly expensive. There’s still questions over whether YouTube profitable even with all the ads and the subscriptions.