You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
7 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Why is everyone so worked up about a huge company wanting to earn even more money, we know this is how it works, and we always knew this was coming. You tried to cheat the system and they’ve had enough.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

It’s all well and good that Google want to make money from my data - but they should be paying me for it. The value of my data isn’t from the data itself, but what can be done with it.

You can’t build a car without paying for the nuts and bolts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They are. They provide you with a service for your data. It’s called YouTube. And if they don’t have a place to show you ads, the data is useless because no one will use it. It’s a closed loop.

And even if you don’t agree with it, it’s still a company selling a service and it can do whatever it wants to earn money from it. There’s nothing unethical about that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

No, it is not an exchange of data for access to the website. The website is provided completely free, and the data collection is the small print. A normal contract exchanges one thing for another, then the details are in the fine print. If it were an exchange of data for access, then the amount of data they collect would be proportional.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How is it immoral? Is Google morally obligated to provide you with a way to use their service for free? Google wants YouTube to start making money, and I’d guess the alternative is no more YouTube.

Nope, but it is legally required to ask for permission to look into my device for data that it does not need to provide the serice.

Of course Google could make money, it just need to make them without violating the laws.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

I get what you are saying, but you could argue that google is pretty much a monopoly at this point, using their power trying to extract money from customers they could never do if their was any real competition with a similar number of channels and customers.

I think most users see google/youtube as a “the internet”, or a utility as important as power, water and heat. And don’t forget that google already requires users to “pay” for their services with data and ads in other services (maps, search, mail) as well.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free? Why? What does Google owe us?

They only have the monopoly if we give it to them. I find their model fair, I use their service a lot. if they overprice me I’ll find another form of entertainment.

But you are right, people see YouTube as a necessity at this point. I’m trying to remind you, it’s not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

So because they earn money somewhere else they should do something else for free?

Obviously not, but there is nothing to stop Google from making Youtube a paid service and drop that charade about adblockers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

YouTube is a lot more than just entertainment. Not trying to argue your overall point just pointing that out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Err, going through threads of conversations on both reddit and lemmy regarding YouTube, one would assume ad free access is the norm and Google even daring to offer Youtube Premium is a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I feel offering Youtube Premium while still tracking the users online movement is indeed a bad thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

I think it’s a question of drawing a line between “commercial right” and “public good”.

Mathematical theorems automatically come under public good (because apparently they count as discoveries, which is nonsense - they are constructions), but an artist’s sketch comes under commercial right.

YouTube as a platform is so ubiquitously large, I suspect a lot of people consider it a public good rather than a commercial right. Given there is a large body of educational content, as well as some essential lifesaving content, there is an argument to be made for it. Indeed, even the creative content deserves a platform.

A company that harvests the data of billions, has sold that data without permission for decades, and evades tax like a champion certainly owes a debt of public good.

The actions of Google are not those of a company “seeking their due”, for their due has long since been harvested by their monopolisation of searches, their walked garden appstore, and their use of our data to train their paid AI product.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Honestly if I were a politician I would support legislation restricting permanent bans from major websites from being given out willy-nilly because too many of them are ubiquitous enough to qualify as a public good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

A public good? Like roads, firefighters, etc? You want the government to pay for your Youtube Premium subscription?

Less snarky, if you’re arguing that Youtube has earned a special legal status, a natural consequence is that Google gets to play by a different rulebook from all other competitors. That’s quite a dangerous direction to take.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Your snark was actually closer to the mark than you think.

Let’s say YouTube vanished overnight, what would the impact be? Sarcasm might suggest “we’d all be more productive” but let’s take a deeper look.

  1. A lot of free courses (or parts thereof) would vanish. (A key resource for poorer learners)

  2. Most modern tech repair guides would be gone (no machine breakdowns, no guides on fixing errors on old hardware)

  3. A lot of people’s voices would be silenced (YouTube is an awful platform, but for some people it’s one of the only ones they have)

Seems to me, it would do a lot of public harm. Probably more harm than removing a freeway or closing a fire station.

As for letting Google “play by a different rulebook”, it does so already. The OP has indicated that they’re undertaking an action in an illegal way, and yet no-one much cares to stop them. Yes, they could do the same thing via legal channels, but that’s rather like suggesting there is no difference between threats of violence vs taking someone to court when trying to collect money.

Would you grant an insurance company similar legal indemnity? How would you feel about your local barber peeking in your window and selling what they see? Google has long played by a different rulebook, and thus different expectations are held.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points
*

Unrecognized entitlement on their part, lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 568K

    Comments