service provider: "Hello, I'm a window cleaner, do you want me to clean your windows? I'll actually do it for free this time! Please recommend me to your peers"

customer: "yes please"

service provider: "all done! Want me to do it again in three months time?"

customer: "yes, I love free stuff!"

service provider: "actually, I'd have to charge for that, can't work for free all the time."

customer: "Racketeering!"

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Racketeering" is definitely the wrong word.

I'll put it like this. I think YouTube Premium is too expensive. I also think YouTube is too aggressive with it's ads.

I opt to send them that message by using an ad blocking service tailored to YouTube and paying the content creators in other ways.

If the family plan weren't 20 dollars a month to cover 2 accounts I would probably buy it. But they opted to offer only 1 or many never just 2.

I'm capable of affording it. I pay nearly every major streaming service monthly even when I am not using them, so long as their cost is reasonable.

YouTube Premium's cost is not reasonable. Especially when you consider they are still collecting and making money off of your data in the end.

[–] MucherBucher@feddit.de 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how the pricing for Premium is unreasonable. I do, however see, how they are too aggressive with ads. That's why I said paying for premium is a better deal than watching ads. If you don't agree with either compensation, don't use their service

[–] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

It's completely fair that your view on the pricing is different than mine.

Complete transparency, I do play their ads sometimes. I only refuse if I'm watching on my phone directly, but I cast from the official app. And I will have YouTube playing when I'm eating or playing a game on the steam deck.

The thing people should be referring to instead of it being a racket is that YouTube has a stranglehold on creators. I can watch streaming vids on another service, but if I want to consume content from small creators, I have to use YouTube. There isn't a real option for alternatives.

So, I do provide the platform with some money. Then I pay creators in a way where they get a higher dollar amount than YouTube would give them.

[–] SinAdjetivos@beehaw.org 1 points 10 months ago

It depends on the how the contract is written but generally billing a client the full time to develop an existing feature that "could be turned on in 10 min." is a good example of fraudulent misrepresentation. A business/industry that replies on that (like your example) is a racket.

Yes, I understand that's how the world of 'software as a service' works and yes I am calling it a racket.