• Madrigal@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    1 year ago

    I wouldn’t object to paying if:

    1. Their pricing was more reasonable
    2. A fairer cut went to content creators
    3. They had something that actually qualified as a search function on their site
    4. They weren’t trying to bully everyone into paying
    • Midnight Wolf@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      This. I used to pay for ytp family plan, way back when now. I had to skip a month as money was that tight. When I went to resub, they wanted an extra ~$5 a month, or like 25%, for the same content and features. No advertised changes in revenue sharing amounts.

      I just pay creators directly now, via patreon and ko-fi. I don’t care about yt, I care about a few creators. A few have stated that $1 is more than they make from yt per user per month. The revenue split is wild.

      I don’t care about ytm. Cut the cost in half and give more to the people that are actually providing content. Right now yt in my eyes is greedy and their additional price hikes solidify that.

    • N-E-N@lemmy.caEnglish
      35·
      1 year ago

      I think the price is very fair if you split the family plan with others

      Also I think creators get a 55% cut for ad revenue which seems reasonable to me

      • Gabu@lemmy.worldEnglish
        32·
        1 year ago

        You’re joking, right? Creators make the whole video, Youtube only has to serve it. Also, not all creators get money from ads, so Youtube gets to STEAL from the little guys.

        • N-E-N@lemmy.caEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          You realize that serving the video is incredibly expensive right? There’s a reason Lemmy doesn’t support video hosting

          They also pay for hosting the thousands of videos from “little guys” that no one will watch