• BeezKnuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is when a free alternative which offers more features and is easier to set up exists.

      • okamiueru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are definitely better front-end alternatives to YouTube. But… they contribute nothing to the people who make the content that you want to use those front-ends for. I pay for YouTube premium, but I still sometimes use other methods for consuming it. So, take this for what it’s worth: by all means, use the free alternatives, etc. But the whole “don’t pay for it if it is free” is shortsighted.

    • frippa@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I enjoy breathing air, I would not pay for it, why should I pay for YouTube w/o ads when a free alternative (ublock origin + sponsorblock + misc. extentions) exist and it’s better? (not regionlocked for example, another big one is that it’s… Free)

      • okamiueru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not really an accurate analogy, nor is this concept complicated enough to warrant one. Content creators (air makers?) need to sustain themselves with the revenue their work grants them. People who circumvent this like you, add to the running cost of YouTube but contribute nothing in return. I personally despise advertisement of all forms, so I understand your motivation to do so. I would even encourage it if you have no other means. But, to justify it in the way you do seems intellectually and/or morally dishonest.