I honestly thought this was about to be another orb post from the thumbnail.

Which I’ve been saying into the void for a while. Ideally in capitalism demand drives supply. If their demand is lack luster (for people upgrading to premium), rather than trying to cajole people through force into buying their product, they should drop the fucking price. Instead, they want to keep it bundled with music, and thus make it prohibitively expensive, while simultaneously competing in two seperate markets simultaneously. Give the people a video only tier, at a truly reasonable price, and begin (read: continue) to rake in cash. It’s very frustrating.

I left Reddit to call their bluff. I stay away from Reddit because I want to help grow the fediverse. It’s already better than when I joined. And I believe, perhaps naively, that it will continue to get better. I’d rather be the part of the beginning of something great than lingure around as a great thing rots.

Does it?

Not OP, but I just want videos. I don’t need or want their music service. That’s the premium I’m waiting for.

Personally I wouldn’t mind paying for YouTube premium. As a matter of fact I did in the past. But it’s priced at least twice as high as I’m willing to pay. Perhaps if they had full premium with YouTube music at the current too high price, and then a “premium lite” that was simply no ads and but no YouTube music either at half or less the full price. Personally I just don’t want ads, I don’t want to over pay for a music service I dont want, just because I don’t want ads in the unrelated video portion of youtube.

Currently I feel like they are bullying me into buying a service I don’t want, by interfering with a service that I do want. Which is honestly what I suspect is at the root of this current push against ad blockers in the first place. It’s not about the video service in any meaningful way, I suspect they are trying to leverage their video dominance to bolster their music subscribership. This seems antisocial enough for me to have no ethical concerns about attempting to circumvent their ads.

I always never don’t not agree with you.

Exactly. Premium is basically twice what I’m willing to pay. I’ve considered going premium multiple times, and have multiple times suffered sticker shock and backed away.

Again, the porn is not the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with making or watching porn. The predators are the problem.

Two things to consider:

One, I guarantee you have watched and will watch again, a major Hollywood movie featuring victims of abuse by directors, producers, other actors. Even child victims. Hollywood is widely recognized for being a dark and evil place with imbalances of power and open secrets about exploitation. But watching movies is not inherently evil. The best you can do is be deliberate in your choices and try your best to not support the bad guys.

Two, where does the moral imperative end? Ok, so you’ve decided that entertainment in the form a sexual performance is fundamentally different than movies/tv/theater/music. You abstain from participating because you believe it is unethical. Do you then believe in censorship? Surely if it is categorically wrong it should be made illegal? Better safe than sorry. But who gets to control the terms of censorship? What about the woman of color who is making enough doing porn to empower themselves in a society that is essentially constructed to deprive them of power? Is it right to take away that power due, ironically, to the actions of the same type of bad guy that limits their power in the first place?

Prohibition does not work. Not for drugs, not for alcohol, not for porn, and of the three I listed it is arguably the healthiest pastime. The solution is openness and oversight. Stop forcing porn talent to exist in some walled off dim corner of the internet. Eliminate the stigma. Give me that new Netflix Original porn with credits and funding. But it still wont be perfect. But that still doesn’t make it fundamentally wrong.

“Fine with” is probably too far. I think they’re pointing out that, for example, your phone contains cobalt which was likely mined unethically, perhaps by a child, perhaps resulting in their death. Is therefore buying a phone inherently wrong? Not essentially. Nor is porn inherently wrong. The abusers in these scenarios are in the wrong, not necessarily the end consumer.

It could even be argued that rather than being some sort of monster for being unknowingly subjected to footage of a sexual assault, that the viewer is also now being harmed themselves.

Furthermore, I’m not familiar with the “Girls Do Porn” channel/company/whatever but it sounds to me that the concept was porn created by women. Wether sound or not logically, the intent seemed ideally to be a safer porn environment, like reduced patriarchy flavored porn. So in this case the company responsible actively preyed on people trying to find a more consensual and equitable pornography.

There is definitely a crime here, but it isn’t the horny guy cranking away in the privacy of his home.

First game that came to mind was The Looker.