Often put on various Cat TV channels from YouTube on before leaving for work. They are usually like 8 hour long shots of birds and squirrels eating nuts someone left on log, the cats love it and will watch diligently. They are monetized channels often enough, and its just funny to me knowing that every once in a while the cats, who are otherwise alone in the house, are being treated to a commercial for some sports betting service, or for profit college experience. This entire edifice of targeted ads being directed to two cats who suddenly experience a very human moment in this absurd context. Can't help but feel like they sense it, that they are suddenly interpolated into this thing, subjects to the streams of money and incentived attention. brought down into our inferior world of commodities and money. Have been close to getting the premium YouTube just for their sake, and of course for the sake of the nice people making the videos.
Last I checked YouTube premium doesn't pay out for your views like ads do. It goes into a single pot that is split amongst creators based on their views or ad revenue (can't remember).
Premium views pay out part of your subscription to the creator you watched. A normal ad view is worth fractions of a fraction of a penny, but YouTube premium views pay out much more.
> Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, most of the revenue will go to creators
It's pretty vague, but my reading of this is that it's paid out of a single pool based on the watch time of all YouTube Premium Members. So e.g. if you only watch one video a month, that creator doesn't get all of your money.
I subscribe to YouTube premium solely for the music service, which I listen to for hours a day. I watch maybe 15 minutes of YouTube a month. How do they split this up? Do they pay out more to the music copyright holders since I listen to music so much more? Or does each side of the house have its own "bucket" to draw down?
If so, maybe I should seek out worthy YouTubers to donate to be leaving it running in the background.
I didn't do the math, but can't imagine that leaving a TV on/off for ~9 hours (guessing that's how long time OP works + transit) has a huge impact on the total carbon footprint from that household, but I might be wrong. Care to show how it's actually "incredibly wasteful for the whole world"?
Yeah, that makes sense. Americans are incredibly wasteful. My claim wasn't that they aren't. My claim is that if some of them leave the TV on VS leaving it on for ~7 hours some days doesn't have a huge impact on the carbon footprint, even less is "incredibly wasteful for the whole world".
