• Ballistic_86@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Isn’t that the agreed upon consolation for free content? Was nobody alive when TV was the primary means of content consumption?

    It always irked me that people are upset over YouTube running ads. Like, of course they had to start running ads, hosting/programming/daily operating millions of videos isn’t free for them. They need to make money some how, even at “break even” which prevents the idea of profit seeking would mean running ads.

    Hate to sound like a “kids these days” but seriously, absolutely nothing in life is free and if there isn’t a direct cost, advertising is going to be present.

      • Ballistic_86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I agree that if Google is getting the content for free they should, at least try, to keep it ad free for the consumer. But I don’t know if Google has to pay licensing for stuff like PBS. PBS does technically have ads, but they are unobtrusive, shown at the beginning or end of a show and are presented as “Brought to you by….” Less of an ad and more recognition that a company has paid to support bringing PBS to you for free.

        I’ve never uses this service, so I’m not aware of how they might insert ads either. Between shows? Typical ad-breaks times every 8.5 minutes of broadcast time? More?