I agree that it would make more sense if they called it a “household” plan. That’s clearly what it is.

By Darwin you see a lot. I was merely stating that I think YouTube premium is worth the price I pay for it.

Is there no product you are satisfied with? Your life must be pretty bleak.

Is recommending a product that you’re satisfied with “shilling”?

Is there a product in this world that you think is worth the price? Does that make you a shill?

You mean removing sponsor led segments inside a video? Sort of. The jump ahead feature, which I think is a premium feature, allows you to jump in the video based on where everywhere else is jumping in the video. So when a sponsored segment starts and you skip forward 30s (double tap on mobile, ‘k’ on PC) you are offered to jump ahead. You click that and you get to the end of the sponsored segment.

YouTube steals other people’s work?

I tend to watch content creators who willingly put their content on YouTube. Am I missing something here…?

I know. I thought we were upvoting respectful debate, not having a popularity contest. But apparently not…

It’s a product. You can buy it or not. If you don’t think it’s worth it, stay away, or stay on the free tier. You’re acting as if you’ve got some kind of right to use a service that’s provided by a commercial entity.

It’s too expensive agreed. However YouTube has a lot of discounted memberships through other services. I wouldn’t pay full price for it, but through my mobile phone company I get more than 50% off and that’s a bloody great deal.

Same here. I’ve cancelled Netflix, never got Disney plus, never use prime (though I think I have access to something through prime shipping).

YouTube however; I watch this every single day, use it for learning, relaxation, documentaries etc.

It’s a fantastic platform and well worth the subscription AFAICS.

If you pay, the platform remains great. I get a discounted YouTube premium membership through my mobile phone company. I think YouTube is great, I never see ads, lots of features.

Just to offer an alternative view.

Sort of the same system they’re building in Denmark.

You will log into MitID (myID), authenticate with the MitID app, then be issued a bunch of ZKP tokens which you’ll burn off against age verification services. No trace, fully authenticated, fully trusted, damn near impossible to fool.

Ok. I get the concept that pornography doesn’t harm children. We can debate that.

But by that reckoning should we also allow children to buy guns online and have them delivered at home? Is there nothing we want to restrict online, on account that whoever is buying it might be too young?

I’m am 100% any form of checks that identify you.

But for what it is worth the European Union’s proposed framework for this legally mandates zero knowledge proofs.

The UK’s implantation sucks. Big hairy monkey balls.

If you buy alcohol at a farmer’s market, the seller has a responsibility to ensure they’re not supplying it to a child. At least in most countries.

So you would also support a child buying alcohol online on account of being given money and access to the internet?

Eh, Denmark is. They are building exactly a ZKP system.

Britain has chosen to not make this a legal requirement so it is possible to tie back age verification with who verified. That makes it a lot more suspect.

I too have been screaming about private online since the 90s. I have an intuitive reaction that sort of mirrors yours.

But can I ask you a question?

And it’s one that I’m asking because I genuinely wish to learn from others.

Because I can’t quite see the difference and maybe there’s something I’m missing.

Why is it not government overreach to ensure pornography isn’t sold to minors in an adult video store, but government overreach to have the same expectation of online pornography providers?

I would love your enlightened view on this so I can learn from it. Because I can’t quite see the difference.

I understand that many adults go into an adult video store and need not prove their age, because they clearly look like adults.

And so the difference here is that everyone have to prove their age online, even people that are clearly adults by how they look.

But entering a pornography website is the equivalent of entering an adult video store where the clerk cannot see you, cannot hear your voice. In that world I would also expect the clerk to check every purchase as they would have no other means of assessing the buyer’s age.

Or maybe you think that adult videos should be sold to everyone and it’s the very concept that pornography is restricted to minors that you disagree with. I don’t personally hold that view but then I can least understand why you would also reject online age verification.

Or maybe you think it is ineffective and won’t make a difference. That argument I most definitely agree with, but how we choose to implement a law, and whether it’s effective, is two different discussions I would posit.

Edit: I love that I’m getting downvoted for expressing a POV respectfully.

Yes despite my downvotes I’ll stick my neck out to agree with you.

If a US company wanted to sell liquor online in the UK, they’d have to follow U.K. laws for alcohol licensing and age-verified delivery.

I don’t know why age verification is any different. That’s the UK law (which I disagree with for what it’s worth, certainly in its current implementation) and if you want to operate in the UK (and for a website that means be accessible to U.K. audiences) you follow U.K. laws while here.

I don’t really get this.

Whether I like the UK’s act, they are free to set the laws of their land. So if foreign websites don’t want to comply, the UK is also free to order its ISPs to block the site.

Which kids will then circumvent with VPN.

And so on …

I know! The joke doesn’t really work when you know how to pronounce it.

The polite version of lmgtfy