I don't fucking care.

This is a good discussion point, rather than an arms race discussion of ads vs adblockers.

Some key points to make are that Google is making a crap ton of money from ads, they are keeping most of it so creators must resort to sponsorships and patreon. Google additionally makes money by selling your profile data.

It's not like I have a true answer to your question, but a "workable" system should consist of: Google makes money Creators make money Customers are reasonably private The concept of making money isn't about making the entire system worse, just so you pay for it not to be

My problem with Google is they don't really care. They'll burn it all if it makes them money until it's dead.

There could be some key features that get implemented on a paid tier, but paying is just ads vs no ads.

An equally valid question would be, what can YT do to incentivize you to pay? They could ad features only available to subscribers, but they really don't.

I would make it a semi walled garden, with free and premium content. Subscription tiers would be for customers and creators alike. Vimeo has a good system (though not perfect) with feature sets only available certain tiers. There's incentive to upgrade if you want those features.

Here's a big differentiator though. YT has this magic algorithm that feeds you what it wants to. Creators have no say in that (nor do customers). But if I post a video you like, I want you to watch more of my videos, not videos from somebody else similar to me. YT takes full control, and sends people away just as fast as sending them in. Why would I pay for that?

Platforms like Vimeo don't do that (I'm not advocating vimeo, they're just the example I think is most comparable). Wouldn't having some level of control over that as a viewing customer and content creator have value? No, let's just slap ads on it.

I can also argue that this goes against my final criterea point, that YT just made things worse with their algorithm and this is just paying to remove it. There was a day where subscribing to a channel meant you got to see their videos. No bell ringing needed.

And I'm sorry I just vomited my brain into these thoughts and wall of text. If you made it this far, bless you.

But this is why I don't use YT directly. I was with vanced but ended up with newpipe, because its a simple scraper. That fact not only removes ads, but it gives me control of what I watch with my time (which has value). That is the lesson YT forgot, and the root of why any of this is an issue.

I don't really have a plan for this since I won't be giving money to far-right propagandists and their spiral of rage attention algorithm.

I only pay capitalists what is absolutely necessary. I will pirate and steal until they go out of business and something that isn't profit driven comes along.

It should be publicly-funded, like infrastructure. Having a video sharing platform is clearly very important, but I don't think there are any companies that are both capable of running it and trustworthy enough to do so.

Spend their money that they hoard?

Art should not be produced for profit, because it stops being art. Ideally we would subsidize artists, or better yet provide for everyone's needs and let them make art in their free time. Forcing us to watch corporate propaganda about fucking dishwasher detergent ain't it.

It's actually cheaper to stream videos without ads, less traffic less diskspace ;)

It just got pushed too far. Like Google search itself. Most people are fine with a short ad once in a while, while paying with their invaluable personal data, but they push it too far and make it unwatchable, like Google search itself became garbage because of all the Google pushed SEO bs.

You're never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.

Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?