79
Google is testing a new way to make YouTube worse
(gizmodo.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
79 points (100.0% liked)
AMUSING, INTERESTING, OUTRAGEOUS, or PROFOUND
573 readers
396 users here now
This is a page for anything that's amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
♦ ♦ ♦
RULES
① Each player gets six cards, except the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.
② Posts, comments, and participants must be amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound.
③ This page uses Reverse Lemmy-Points™, or 'bad karma'. Please downvote all posts and comments.
④ Posts, comments, and participants that are not amusing, interesting, outrageous, or profound will be removed.
⑤ This is a non-smoking page. If you must smoke, please click away and come back later.
Please also abide by the instance rules.
♦ ♦ ♦
Can't get enough? Visit my blog.
♦ ♦ ♦
Please consider donating to Lemmy and Lemmy.World.
$5 a month is all they ask — an absurdly low price for a Lemmyverse of news, education, entertainment, and silly memes.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
True, we can't let the trillionaires miss out on revenue streams. Super yachts don't pay for themselves, plus shareholders have bills too.
I apologise for my rude comment. Have a nice day.
I get your point, we need to tax these assholes to hell and back. Wealth inequality is one of the biggest global social issues of the time.
But that does not change that YouTube is barely profitable, and will be eventually shut down if it's not at least somewhat financially viable. It's a private endeavor. That's just how that works. If we want that service to stick around, someone will have to pay for it. I'm open to suggestions of funding a public alternative, but YouTube as a business needs funding, whether we like it or not.
Why are you seemingly so bothered by this?