414
YouTube Premium Is Not Ad-Free as Advertised, Class Action Lawsuit Claims (www.classaction.org)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1310997/youtube-premium-is-not-ad-free-as-advertised-class-action-lawsuit-claims

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

Unless they are referring to paid advertisements by the creators.

The creators would presumably take a cut/fee from YouTube for showing their content ad-free. sponsorblock already does something similar.

Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.

A good rule of thumb for me is, if I see adverts on YouTube and on TV for the same company or product, then they are charging too much..

I choose to avoid them.

if somebody is advertising a small company/startup etc..

Go for it.

But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.

Nahh...

--An ultra religious sponsorblock and ublock and hater of mass marketing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Please see my two edits regarding this. YouTube very clearly spells out that these sponsored segments are fair game for YouTube Premium. This lawsuit is utterly frivolous, and I hope it burns for being such a joke that I could debunk it in five minutes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Plus they have a built in functionality to detect and skip creator ads. Not that if they were actually legally responsible for blocking those that this would be an acceptable solution, but they aren't, so this is a consumer bonus.

    I hate that I'm defending Google here, but I agree the lawsuit is frivolous.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago*

    I hate that I'm defending Google here

    So do I; believe me, I went into this hoping Google had badly fucked up, which is why I was admittedly miffed enough to write that comment and to try to prove myself wrong in the edit. Very "that was just a bunch of cheap walk cycles!" energy; I wanted the lost episode.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    Creators already get paid very well for posting on YouTube.

    Not since Pewds made some nazi jokes 9 years ago. Think they're only now getting back to where they were before that.

    There are also a ton more people doing a lot of niches, so now you get fewer views.

    A good rule of thumb for me is, if I see adverts on YouTube and on TV for the same company or product, then they are charging too much…

    That I can agree on, but then again, how would they even sell their product if there's no advertisement? The companies that don't charge too much and then stuff some of it into advertisement, tend to go under.

    But if a creator has ads on premium that costs x amount each month.

    Creator doesn't really know if you have premium or not and many users (me) will also have adblock so they don't get a cent from these views. That's why many will show you ad-free videos on Patreon or Nebula. No sponsor segments if they know you're a paying customer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    There are also a ton more people doing a lot of niches, so now you get fewer views.

    So it's tougher to crack. Surely a better way to rise to the top would be to have fewer or no adverts, and better content.

    That I can agree on, but then again, how would they even sell their product if there's no advertisement? The companies that don't charge too much and then stuff some of it into advertisement, tend to go under.

    I am not against advertising as a tool. I'm mainly referring to the companies that will pay crazy money for advertising, and pass that expense on to the end users. Blanket advertising, shouldn't be allowed, it also allows the bigger, wealthier companies to drown out the smaller and start up companies.

    Creator doesn't really know if you have premium or not and many users (me) will also have adblock so they don't get a cent from these views. That's why many will show you ad-free videos on Patreon or Nebula. No sponsor segments if they know you're a paying customer.

    That's why YouTube Premium should be the same as Patreon or Nebula. The creators should be querying YouTube about working something out there, instead of hitting the users with ads that they thought they had paid to get rid of.

    I also would suspect that this case would be more about about the letter of the law, and not about what's expected from the creators etc. If YouTube are marketing an ad free experience to people that pay for the service, then this is what it should be. Overall, if anything, this case should work out better for everyone except probably Google. YouTube would have to find a better way/payment to allow creators to have two videos without making too much extra work for them. One for premium and one for non premium.

    There is still product placement etc. Subtle suggestions and other methods that I'm sure many businesses would still pay for.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent