undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnox1011y ago0 comments

not sure what your point is. let's assume it's true. That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos. Without that those channels would have to pay for hosting themselves and could not afford to make the content.

Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start

Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc... which means even without YouTube's ads they're still ad driven

0 comments

hypeatei1y ago

> Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly

Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT.

> That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos

Your assertion was related to the channels themselves existing, not YT as a platform. I can agree that the platform probably wouldn't exist without some sort of funding source but that doesn't necessarily need to come from ads.

nox101OP1y ago

> Those are third party sponsorships done by channel owners, not ads inserted by YT.

That supports my point. Ads are paying for the content.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse