• @ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    611 months ago

    You don’t have a moral responsibility to pay someone who is selling your time and attention on top of someone else’s work. “The servers aren’t free!” Ok. Landlords are entitled to zero profit. The sooner we get there, the better. That’s the main thing Adam Smith and Marx agree on: rentiers are useless.

    • Dark ArcA
      link
      English
      -211 months ago

      They’re paying that person for their work if it’s making them money and not charging them if it’s losing them money.

      You don’t have a moral responsibility to use their service, but just because it’s been free for years, that doesn’t mean you have a right to it either.

      • @ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        I pay for YouTube Premium or whatever it’s called (because I hate ads) and I even own some Google shares. It is good for me in a very narrow sense when people watch YouTube ads.

        But from a philosophical and economics standpoint, rent-seeking monopolists are bad for society and the economy as a whole, whether it’s a landlord charging rent to productive people, a toll road, or a monopolist dictating terms to productive people for the use of their infrastructure.

        Google did not make any of my favorite YouTube videos. They do not give creators anywhere near 100% of the ad revenue. Maybe the split is fair but since they have a monopoly, it’s not. They are the equivalent of pre-capitalist English land barons who added very little (besides maybe some accounting) and took more than their share. YouTube’s profits are a tax on the creator economy in the same way Apple’s App Store tax is terrible for developers. We do not have a moral responsibility to pay taxes to private companies.

        • Dark ArcA
          link
          English
          111 months ago

          I disagree with the classification of “rent seeking”. It’s a service, with active expenses that you’re not paying.

          If you buy a toaster, the company that made the toaster isn’t paying for the power that made the toast. That’s different from say, a ticket to a zoo, a kayaking trip company, mini-golfing, cable, Internet, phone, or the power bill itself.

          They do not give creators anywhere near 100% of the ad revenue.

          And nobody could, even if you operated your own site, you’d have operating costs.

          Maybe the split is fair but since they have a monopoly, it’s not.

          I honestly don’t even think it’s fair to say they have a monopoly. Their service offering is unique, but there are other models that aren’t YouTube clones. Reddit, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram, TikTok, and even “X” have video hosting options in slightly different formats.

          The lack of a clone of a literal clone of YouTube is not a lack of competition. Additionally YouTube’s business model is extremely expensive and requires significant investment in storage.

          They are the equivalent of pre-capitalist English land barons who added very little (besides maybe some accounting) and took more than their share. YouTube’s profits are a tax on the creator economy in the same way Apple’s App Store tax is terrible for developers. We do not have a moral responsibility to pay taxes to private companies.

          IMO, those are some serious mental gymnastics equating renting land you need to survive, that you’re forced to pay to a government entity, or an app store which is the only possible source of apps for an entire operating system vs a website you have the choice to use or not use and that had active and large operating costs because of its extensive catalog of freely uploaded content.