YouTube Announce Ads-Free Subscription Service

YouTube have announced a subscription service called YouTube Red. We’ve known it was on the way for a long time, but now it’s official. In return for a monthly fee, you can watch YouTube videos without ads, save them offline, and gain access to a bunch of original content being produced by YouTube themselves in partnership with some folks you’ll have heard of, including popular game-player/millionaire/generational hot take topic, PewDiePie.

The service will launch in the USA on October 28th and will cost $9.99 a month, with prices and launches in other regions to follow.

The original shows won’t arrive till next year however, though many of them are described in detail in another YouTube post. They’re not all games-related of course, but many are, including:

Scare PewDiePie: In this reality-adventure series from the creator and executive producers of The Walking Dead at Skybound Entertainment and Maker Studios, experience thrills, chills and laughter as PewDiePie encounters terrifying situations inspired by his favorite video games.

360 Project from MatPat of Game Theory: YouTube educator and pop culture expert MatPat from The Game Theorists invites the audience to come along for the ride in an innovative new series and 360 VR experience. In each episode Matt explores the real-life science behind popular video games by throwing gamers into the high-stakes scenarios they play through every day, from water jetpacks to haunted pizzerias.

Fight of the Living Dead: In an unprecedented social experiment reality show from Alpine Labs, Fight of the Living Dead takes popular YouTube talent and traps them in a frighteningly realistic zombie apocalypse. They must use their instincts and gaming skills to survive as they battle the elements for the ultimate prize of survival.

I use YouTube constantly, for music and for original videos. There is a lot of great stuff out there – subscribe to RPS why not – including much of it about games. I don’t think ads inconvenience me enough to make me want to pay however, and the original content described above sounds like it’s aimed more at teenagers than at me. Obviously this means it will fail, that modern society is doomed, and that I am sad about my inevitable death.

Here’s a trailer:


  1. Haborym says:

    Or you can just browser plugins to do all that for free.

    • Henke says:

      If you’re a terrible person, sure. The money to pay for the serverspace of all those videos has to come from somewhere, and you using adblockers is only going to mean more ads for everyone else.

      • ersetzen says:

        I like the general idea, but ten dollars seems a tad steep…

        Anyway, US only makes it a moot point for many people and he feel that most have viewers of PewDiePie don’t have ten dollars a month.

        • ersetzen says:

          That was supposed to say I, not he.

          Edit please:(

        • Henke says:

          Yeah $10 is a bit pricey for me as well. I’ll just keep watching the regular ad-supported version.

        • Kerbal_Rocketry says:

          $10 is a bit steep IMO, and given half goes to youtube and the other half is distribute via misterious means to the creators (seems be a per view thing, which punishes those who make good content or do colabs and rewards click baiting.)

          Personally prefer to use adblock and sign up to patrons give ad money is like 0.00005p per hundred views.

          Compare that Netflix is $8 a month.

          • Zack Wester says:

            I wounder how mush money Youtube makes after all cost are paid from a user. and how mush a content creator gets from a user.

            Now I wounder what those numbers are if I pay 9.99 a mount how mush more will youtune make and will content creators get more to or is it the same?

            there is this huge Black hole of numbers in need missing and this just sort of… Im in unease.

      • Frings says:

        I feel like the argument here is made weaker when you consider it’s Google we’re talking about. They’re hardly struggling for server space or how to afford it.

      • thelastpointer says:

        Well, I’m a terrible person too. Could you please watch my portions of ads too? Because, you know, fuck ads.

        I think every sane person should use an adblocker, and specifically whitelist sites they wish to support. I do this, but yeah, well, this is just my opinion, man.

      • Stupoider says:

        I must be a terrible person for watching TV and leaving the room when adverts are on then.

      • TTex says:

        Hi, terrible person here and unapologetic for it. After all we get saturated with already for advertising that keeps increasing while content goes down (a practice that has been occurring long before there were ever things like adblockers, so don’t blame it on them), I’m tired and a lot of other people are tired of it too. So you’re darn right we happily use adblockers.

      • Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

        Yeah because Google are really struggling, the poor little sausages.

        • Nereus says:

          I’ve been trying to organise a Sudanese charity rock concert to help google get through this rough patch.

          • Sene says:

            I genuinely just choked on the biscuit I was eating while reading this reply. Well played. Would nearly die again.

      • Distec says:

        It is genuinely not my fucking problem that certain businesses have built themselves on something as fleeting and volatile as clicks and pageviews as opposed to money. Their sustainability is their own concern.

        As if Google is hurting. Any website complaining about adblockers should just put up a fucking paywall and get over it.

        • Damien Stark says:

          “Fleeting and volatile” – yeah, this whole “advertising as a business model” thing is just a big fad, I’m sure it’ll blow over soon.

          Google? Facebook? YouTube? American TV networks like ABC/NBC/CBS? Pffft, amateurs. Everyone knows the real money is in asking your customers to pay cash for your content, like print newspapers and magazines.

          • theslap says:

            It is fleeting. Just look how many people are canceling their cable subscriptions for streaming only services which yes, by gosh, have a monthly fee with no advertising! Business models change especially as technology changes. Just because an older business model can work in some instances does not mean that it is sustainable in the future.

          • silentdan says:

            It’s not going to blow over, it’s going to devour itself. As advertising becomes more prevalent, people become better able to tune it out, or find it worth their while to set up some technology to minimize advertising intrusion. As a result, advertisers must intrude ever further to get our attention at all, thus increasing general desensitization, and the motivation to affirmatively banish ads. At the same time, when the content is sliced into ever-finer uninterrupted segments, it becomes less valuable as a whole, because you can’t get drawn into the show long enough to enjoy the full impact of what you’re watching, and you’re getting fewer overall minutes of content. If they keep dropping the value of the product, while increasing the price (read: the seconds of your life you spend watching ads), they’re going to reach a tipping point, if they haven’t already, where too many people jump overboard before the ship can turn around, and catastrophe ensues.

            Advertising is like drinking. In moderation, it does little harm, and may even provide a net benefit. In excess, it can cause massive damage to relationships. When YouTube/network television/certain websites realize that they need to manage their advertising addiction more responsibly, they’ll have taken that first big step towards real fiscal responsibility, instead of just chasing the dragon, and I will salute them. Until then, adblockers are the bars I wish I didn’t have to put over my windows to keep the addicts from busting in.

          • Damien Stark says:

            Yes, cable subs are being canceled – because cable subs require cash payment every month. Trading a $80/month cable sub for an $8/month Netflix sub does not show us the triumph of paid subscriptions over advertising. And many of the “cable cutters” are getting their content free from bittorrent feeds.

          • Distec says:

            Relying on ads is fine if it’s sustainable, but you’d have to have your head in the sand to not see that blocking ads has become a common and accepted part of the user experience these days. Complaining that adblock users are somehow robbing content providers of money is ridiculous. That was the point of my response, although you decided to focus on that bit in particular.

            You rely on advertising at your own peril. If your business isn’t succeeding because your audience is blocking all the crap you’re throwing at ’em, then boo hoo. Sorry you’re not Amazon, or Google, or NBC. You’ve decided to build your commerce on a system that nobody ever really liked to begin with and have become increasingly resistant to over time.

            I change the channel every time the commercial breaks start on television, and this kind of “ad avoidance” is perfectly acceptable. It’s only when we start getting to online services that we have have people coming out and stating that this is somehow unfair or immoral.

          • Damien Stark says:


            I have my own opinions on the whole “are people using ad-blockers robbing the content sites they visit” argument, but find it a pointless and counter-productive subject for discussion – like software piracy. Each side fixates on the most extreme cases and finds the middle ground boring and difficult to relate to.

            My point was that regardless of your moral and philosophical stance on the matter, it’s absurd to act as if we all know that advertising is a shaky business model that won’t last.

            “Sorry you’re not Amazon, or Google” – we are LITERALLY talking about Google here. This article, the one we’re commenting on, is about Youtube, owned by Google and immensely profitable based on advertising.

            You seem frustrated with me for not following you off on a tangent argument about all the other little companies you don’t like for their advertising model, but the actual topic at hand here is Google and advertising revenue vs subscription revenue.

            If you continue to maintain the stance that advertising is not a successful business strategy for them in the face of their 450 Billion dollar market cap – with virtually all of their revenue from ads – then all I can say is I don’t want you running the business strategy for my company…

      • Fersken says:

        Hahahah… you really believe we would get fewer and less obtrusive ads if everyone stop using adblockers?

        Do you know what came first? Adblockers are a response to to obnoxious ads. There is a reason every web browser has a pop up blocker these days.

        These fuckers only have themselves to blame.

      • Jenks says:

        “If you’re a terrible person, sure.”

        Your concern for Google’s coffers will surely earn you a sainthood.

      • theslap says:

        There are literally hundreds of thousands of ways that websites can make money aside from intrusive advertisement. If you think that YouTube makes a majority of their money from intrusive video advertisements, you may want to consider that nearly everything you click is logged with Google and used to advertise things to you all over the web including Gmail. At least those advertisements don’t take 5-10 seconds of my life every time I want to watch some content that, by the way, YouTube didn’t create.

      • Cederic says:

        Given how much money Google and other companies make from people viewing videos I’ve posted on Youtube (and not monetised for myself) I think I’ve more than covered the cost of hosting the content I view myself.

      • Haborym says:

        Is it lonely up there on your high horse?

      • eLBlaise says:

        Hmmm so I must be the devil incarnate when I abstain from PewDiePie, Empire, College Gameday, etc. Feels good playing the villain, indeed.

      • Haborym says:

        That’s real cute son. You know what makes you a terrible person? Raping and murdering people. Using an ad blocker is so insignificant as to be a speck of dust in the endless cosmos compared to something genuinely terrible.

    • Cantisque says:

      I’m planning on dropping my Netflix subscription and going for this instead. I certainly use it a lot more and having it ad-free and offline viewing on mobile would be fantastic too.

  2. Zanchito says:

    Adblock, Easy youtube downloader and Firefox. Youtube makes enough money from profiling me and following my browsing habits.

    • DantronLesotho says:

      This x1000000. Hit the nail on the head. The advertising revenue is peanuts compared to the marketing metadata that they yank off of us these days.

      • mukuste says:

        You got any source for that? Because I’m highly confident that that’s bullshit. Advertisement is THE major source of income for Google.

    • Phasma Felis says:

      They make that profiling money by turning it into targeted advertising. If you block all ads, they’re not making money off of you.

      (I’m not _complaining,_ mind you; it’s their own fault for letting ads get so intrusive and crippling that everyone uses an adblocker. I’m just saying, let’s be accurate here.)

  3. KreissV says:

    They want us to pay MONEY to see MORE Pewdiepie? I think I’d rather the opposite please. I’ll pay for a pewdiepie free YouTube as a matter of fact. Or any other loud obnoxious let’s-player for that matter.

    • RedViv says:

      Sorry, as long as the government-mandated braincasts that universally play these videos into any person’s mind are going on, you will have to endure these videos without any options to avoid them.

      • KreissV says:

        Oh god…oh god I can feel it in my skull! B-BRO FIST. OH GOD KILL ME

    • AskForBarry says:

      I like this idea!
      It should not be too hard to configure adblock to remove all PPD content.

  4. GernauMorat says:

    I already have all of these things, apart from the ‘exclusive content’ which if anything I would probably pay to not have to listen to.

    • KreissV says:

      Amen brother.

    • Wisq says:

      Yeah, they’re really shooting themselves in the foot by targeting these videos at a demographic who often lack both the means to pay for things online and the moral compass to see any problem with getting digital stuff for free.

  5. varangian says:

    Well maybe this makes sense for people using phones or tablets where avoiding ads and offline viewing isn’t so easy, but on a PC I’ve never seen a YouTube ad. Kill the sound and switch to another tab to view an interesting RPS post for 30 seconds then back when the dross is over works just fine. And there are multiple plugins to let you save content to view later.

    Now if they came up with content to rival Netflix, Amazon etc. – Daredevil, Orange is the New Black, that kind of thing – then they might have something worth considering. But the list of proposed shows looks like it was lifted from the reject bin at Channel 5.

    • Nereus says:

      Adblock works great on my android tablet. If I had a phone that I used as a smartphone it’d probably run great on that too. The only difference is webpages load slightly slower than on desktop, I can only assume it blocks ads slightly differently to my desktop.

    • Kerbal_Rocketry says:

      ads on tablet/mobile annoy me given that unlike on PC you can’t use the device while the ad is playing. Which is about one step away from forcing people to fill in a questionare to make sure they watched and remembered the advert.

  6. FreeTom says:

    ‘Learn more’

    “YouTube Red is not currently available in United Kingdom”

    Pfft. Be like that, then.

  7. suibhne says:

    All indications are that this is a terrible deal for video creators (aside from the superstars generating featured content), with a rev share way lower than Apple’s App Store or Steam.

    • Damien Stark says:

      Do you have any useful numbers around that? I’m genuinely curious, but most of the Angry Internet Men lack understanding of basic economics and fixate on single easy-to-understand metrics like percentage of revenue share (like with the Steam paid-mods discussion)

      If I have 5 major content streams I view regularly, and YouTube was making $0.20 off the ad views/clicks from my monthly viewing, and they gave those content providers a 50% share of that ad revenue, this is not a better deal than giving them a 10% share of my now $10/month fee…

      • bills6693 says:

        I was under the impression that revenue from your $10 was split among (other than google of course) the videos you watched. I also remember somewhere it being discussed that it would be split based on time watching, not on number of clicks. So if I watch one channel for an hour and another channel for ten 3-minute vids, the hour one gets 66% and the other one gets 33% based on the 60 mins and 30 mins respectively.

        However this may not be how they’ve done it in the end – but if it is then thats great and I will happily subscribe to this service if/when it arrives in the UK (although probably for more money than the US pays because reasons). Just to support the content I view and not have to view ads. Plus the features on mobile seem pretty handy. I have 0 interest in this exclusive content but much interest in keeping youtubers I watch in a job and able to keep making vids.

        (Yes I know there’s apps/extensions for that but I choose to not use an adblocker as if I use the internet I want to be ‘paying’ for it by watching ads and not just whitelisting certain sites).

        • c-Row says:

          If it works like that it’s certainly more balanced than other subscription based services.

  8. Xiyng says:

    I’ll just leave this here: link to

    Makes me wonder where all the ads are going to go now.

    • LionsPhil says:

      A stark reminder that when you depend on Someone Else’s Server, you are at the mercy of that Someone Else.

    • Wisq says:

      Given that I regularly browse sites with adblock on, I’m certainly not adverse to paying my favourite content creators directly in lieu of ads.

      But between not knowing how much of my payment actually goes to the creators I really value, and knowing that they’ve been forced into this deal whether they like it or not … yeah, I don’t think I’ll be signing up any time soon.

    • Frings says:

      Jesus… Somehow I am still surprised by the stuff Google (and similar companies in similar places in their respective markets) pulls sometimes.

  9. Renegade says:

    One important thing that you have missed is that Youtube red also includes Google Play Music in the suscription.

    • Cantisque says:

      That might actually be enough to sway me. Good thing I read the comments! Thanks!

  10. RedViv says:

    Still quite amused by the idea that the name only could get pushed through because everyone feigned ignorance about other things red and tubular during the meeting.

    • JFS says:

      I have no idea what you’re referring to.

      • LionsPhil says:

        Explaining the joke, if that’s sincere.

        • Wisq says:

          Well I for one appreciate the explanation. I had forgotten about that particular site and assumed the post above was just a generic reference to a man’s phallus.

          (To which I was going to say: If it’s really the colour red, you should probably get a doctor to look at it.)

          • Holderist says:

            It is quite possible you could find that content on the tube that is rouge, though.

    • Asurmen says:

      Is it a hub for videos?

  11. Premium User Badge

    phuzz says:

    There’s adverts on youtube? every adblock user.

  12. Kitsunin says:

    Call me crazy but this seems like a great idea, sans all the secondary BS.

    The amount that content creators get from advertisers is nowhere near the value of the time which you waste viewing ads. Having the option of throwing an amount of money you earn in a minute of work, instead of wasting ten minutes watching (or more likely skipping after 5 seconds) ads, is a good deal that wastes our time much more minimally.

    Of course, adblockers exist, and I think it’s incredibly important that they continue to. But like piracy, I feel it’s something whose existence is important, but unsustainable when overused. Which is why it scares me that so many people are using them, even if the reason they do is 99% on the backs of the companies. It makes it so much more likely that Google or whoever will push to make them dysfunctional.

    • Zanchito says:

      That’s why most content creators have patreon or other donation services. I’d rather give my money where I know it’ll specifically reach the person I want it to reach.

    • Frings says:

      You’re assuming this money will reach the content creators in a percentage that will more than make up for their previous ad revenue or alternative deal.

      Realistically, however, Youtube (Google) controls how the values will be split – and do you really think they will be Good Guy Google over their own profit here?
      Not even trying to sound like the crazy neighbour Greg who thinks Google is evil and will be the doom of mankind (though Greg and I do share some similar thoughts…), but. Capitalism.

      • Kitsunin says:

        I mean yes, but the amount of money that goes through from ads is so hilariously low that if you split $1/month between creator and Google, you could have both end up with more than ad revenue would give.

        …But apparently they’ve gone for $10/month, so rationality seems to be out the window.

      • Damien Stark says:

        The thing about “Capitalism” is, it’s not new.

        Google has had the same profit motive for the past five years that they’ll have next month. You could say they’re motivated to take all the ad revenue and give none to the content creators (because profitses!), except that’s not what they do.

        Even assuming Google is hyper-greedy only-self-interest-driven (which I don’t really believe, but it’s a fair starting point for any economic modeling) they have to make providing content on YouTube pay well enough to motivate the creators. That hasn’t changed, and if anything this subscription model favors the large popular creators.

        • Zack Wester says:

          there is Capitalism and then there greedy Capitalism.
          regular Capitalism sees a guy on the street in some backward town.
          (buys the art for 5USD go to the big town and sells it for let say 10USD).
          Greedy Capitalism buys the art for half of 1USD and then sells it for 20 USD).

          Capitalism sees one day that the painter is low/out of paint or have broken his arm.(pays for fixing that).

          Greedy Capitalism same story leaves the artist whit no paint and broken arm,
          but also takes whit him the brush he lend the artist earlier.

          the artist had some family problem and didn’t make as many painting as normally the Capitalism says:
          I understand, its okey.

          Greedy Capitalism says:
          You disrespectful lazy bastard get back there and paint three times as many painting or your in it(trouble).

          • Damien Stark says:

            Your feelings about greed notwithstanding, nothing you said explains why Google/Youtube would behave any more greedily next week than they did last week…

        • Frings says:

          Well, yes, it favours the large creators, as capitalism does (favour the top dog to the disadvantage of those below). Regardless, I wasn’t in fact trying to make a big point about capitalism.

          But you nailed my thought exactly: Why should the large creators who already have their businesses established receive more support than the starters trying to make something of their talents (wherever that may lie)? Well, obviously because they generate more profit (and dependable profit, at that). But the entire point of the Youtube communities that have been built over the years was based on the fact that you could start from nowhere and get somewhere with your content as the backbone of whatever entrenchment you’re trying.

          I would also like to note that a lot of Youtubers make money from outside deals they make. Deals that can be influenced precisely by how much potential ad revenue they generate for their sponsors. So yeah – I’m not saying that Google will not have a certain percentage of the money reach content creators. Just that it’s still not necessarily worth it for the creators.

  13. Capt. Bumchum McMerryweather says:

    Well that’s obnoxious.

  14. JFS says:

    Haha no.

  15. The First Door says:

    I don’t think it’s quite the same thing, but I’ve been in a beta for ad-free music videos for the last few months and I’ve loved it. I never used to use YouTube for listening to music in work before because the ads were too much of a distraction from actually working. Ad-free, however, it makes YouTube rather compelling for me! So… well, I’ll see how much it is in UK money and if it is a sensible price, and doesn’t do too much damage to creators, I’m likely in.

    P.S. Before anyone says I should just use an ad blocker, I hate using ad blockers. The service is free because of the ads, so using ad blockers just means content providers get shafted.

    • Premium User Badge

      phuzz says:

      To a certain extent though, music videos are advertising for the song/musician.
      Well, up until recently they were, you would almost never watch the video rather than listening to the song because only way you could see the video is when it came round on the TV again.
      Now I suppose that’s changing, and watching the video on Youtube is at least as likely as actually buying the song.

  16. Nixitur says:

    At first, I was like “Okay, this sounds interesting.”, then I read that it costs 10 freaking bucks a month!
    If it was like 2 dollars to not see ads, but still support the people I watch, that would be fine, but 10 is outrageous. The amount of money ads generate is measured in cents per 1000 views. My ad-viewing over an entire month very probably doesn’t even add up to $1, so asking for $10 is ridiculous.

    • Polytope says:

      On mobile, I’ve been using Google Contributor instead of adblock over the last few months. It only covers sites using Google’s ad network (like RPS). I’m a pretty light web user, and I spent just over $1 last month.

    • silentdan says:

      They really need to split the ad-free feature off from all the other crap. Sure, there may be $10 worth of services in there, but I don’t want $9 of those services. Includes Google Play Music? Do not want. Includes original programming? Do not want (seriously, all three of the shows mentioned in the article sound fucking unwatchable.) If there’s anything else included with the package, I don’t want that either.

      When they come up with a reasonably-priced way to pay for disabling ads, I’ll kick in the money, and we’ll both be happier. If not, I’ll just keep on doing it with browser plugins. I’m good either way, but I suspect YouTube would prefer getting paid, so it’s really in their interests to explore this.

      • Enso says:

        I feel similarly. I probably have about 5 subscriptions on YouTube and some of thoae, like don’t hug me I’m scared, update once every few months.

        I don’t feel like paying for all the other content is value for my money. I find all the big players on the site to be mostly unbearable, especially when it comes to gaming.

        If I had a show myself I would prefer some other service if it were available, but YouTube is the number one platform so I’d feel like I had no choice.

      • Nixitur says:

        Well, I did say I would pay about $2 which would add up to 200 unskipped 30-second ads per month. I’m pretty certain I don’t watch that much content from Youtube partners, so I’d say that would be a good deal.
        $10 would be 1000 Youtube partner videos watched per month. While there might be people who watch that much, they are most certainly outliers. Google taking these people as a baseline for their subscription service is ridiculous.

    • Person of Interest says:

      Google is an ad-supported company. They can’t make it too cheap to remove ads, or else they’ll lower the value (to the advertiser) of the ads they show to the remaining folk who can’t afford even a trivially-priced subscription.

      Also, 30-second video ads, for either TV or internet, are apparently priced in the ballpark of $10 per thousand views. It’s much higher than for banner ads.

      • silentdan says:

        If $10 pays for 1000 views, then $1 pays for 100 views, and for that price, they should show me 100 videos without ads. Or 75 videos; there’s bound to be some overhead to pay for. Offer me that for $1, and I’ll pay it, but I don’t think I watch even 50 YT videos per month, much less 1000, so $10 is right out.

      • Seraphithan says:

        You are missing an important word there: unskipped.

        YouTube and by extension the creators only get paid if that 30 second ad isn’t skipped. That severely increases the amount of views required to get those 10$. It’s probably still better than banner ads though.

      • Premium User Badge

        phuzz says:

        But it is cheap to remove ads, just run an adblocker. I can’t believe that at least some people at YouTube don’t want it that way, because they don’t seem to be putting any effort in to stymieing adblockers.

  17. oingy_boingy says:

    If the extra money from this means that Google can get Youtube to buffer correctly in their own bloody browser then I’m all for it.

    Not paying for it myself though.

  18. sebagul says:

    I will not pay for a service that stops working randomly. I never know if I will be able to watch the entire video without interruptions. Neither I know if I will be able to watch it complete.

    AND, paying for it means being logged, which also means being spied on any other browser activity. Sorry, Google, you are not entitled to spy on me. I certainly will not pay you to be spied.

    Also, I have issues with having suggested videos from users that I hate. I blocked those users, I disliked his videos, and you still try to force feed them to me. WHY???

    • satan says:

      I found the tracking and subsequent recommendations to be a bit creepy, especially when I wasn’t even logged in, so I just killed all youtube tracking (cookies basically…). Could never go back to feeling like I’m being stalked.

  19. StAUG says:

    “Pay $10 per month to have PewDiePie inflicted upon you.”

    Hmmm. How does get fucked sound?

  20. Teeborg says:

    so 2 word: Ad Block


  21. frogulox says:

    Id like to know more.
    Off to google red tube then.

    • pepperfez says:

      Thanks to Google’s combination of prudery and self-dealing, I imagine that will actually work out just fine for you.

  22. Stevostin says:

    Too expansive. Would take it at $3.

  23. Kerr Avon says:

    Dear reader, can you answer a quick question please? “Have you bought anything recently because of an advert you’ve been forced to watch or listen to?” Thanks for answering. For me, the answer is no. Occasionally if I buy something online say, on Amazon, I see suggestions about similar things and there is a slim possibility I might then become interested to learn more about something I didn’t already know about. And that, dear reader, is the extent I am influenced as far as “advertising” goes. Is it because we have decided it is our decision to look at a new or different product *in the time of our choosing*, rather than being *forced* to watch or listen to an advert when it suits the advertiser? If anything, when I hear an advert on the radio or catch a rare fleeting glimpse of one on TV, it tends to have the opposite effect. It turns me completely off the company and I will never buy anything from them again. If I didn’t before, I will now despise the offending company for invading my personal space and time; as if my time wasn’t somehow important or relevant. Is that a thing, or is it just me? I suspect it isn’t just me. I also suspect that the people who claim that advertising is a “booming growing industry”, work in advertising. Oh and by the way, I too am one of those who didn’t know ads were a thing on Youtube. And no, we’re not uninstalling Adblock. Rather, the lurking shills and professional liars who currently have the misfortune of working in advertising can always quit and get a proper job instead, can’t you? Problem solved.

    • c-Row says:

      Well put. Both my time and attention are finite resources and I’d rather decide myself how I spend them.

  24. Pantalaimon says:

    The piece doesn’t mention that, as far as I can tell, all non subscribers’ content will be made private. That means most of YouTube will no longer be viewable. That pretty much means it ceases to function in the format it has done for, what, a decade? It will no longer be the go-to place to find videos on anything under the planet, and the worst part of this is that the amazing content hosted on the channels of users who’ve drifted away from the service will just up and vanish. YouTube is an incredible resource for all sorts of informative videos that you can’t find anywhere else. And the sad fact is that there are also channels with users who have sadly died, who have amazing content that is heartwarming to watch every now and again. What happens to that? Just gets sucked into the void?

    $10 is nothing in comparison to tearing the site apart.

    • pepperfez says:

      If it can’t be monetized it has no right to exist.
      Contemporary Capitalism