>>106883625
You have to learn to take the bad with the good.
The bad is: yt melts your brain, wastes your time, clickbaits you, enforces censorship, wants to show you ads, has convinced "content creators" to literally become ads themselves, etc.
The good is: there are useful tutorials, music, lectures and other generally interesting shit, although that's only a small percentage of the videos on the platform nowadays.
The good is what gives the platform value, but the bad takes value away from it. If you do the math, the site's value goes into the negative. Therefore, Youtube should technically be paying ME money to use its services.
>>106858663
Nobody should be paying. Then Youtube would finally die off and people would finally move on to the next platform. Then the tech-oligopoly would buy it out again and turn it to shit and the cycle would continue. As a rule of thumb, everything on the internet that becomes a paid service loses the qualities that initially made it good. I don't care for excuses like "that's supposed to be the business model, you have to operate at a loss until you carve out a niche for yourself". Business ruined the internet for everyone. "Entrepreneurs" could disappear off the face of the Earth without that leading to some Atlas Shrugged scenario, and we'd all be better off for it.
