Just because Google is forcing everybody's hand doesn't mean everybody will follow suit. My channel certainly won't, simply because I don't like how they're doing this - to hell if I lose viewership because of it.

PS: downvotes for facts without any actual explanation is really lame.

Well then your channel won't be on Youtube.

Either not on Youtube or it will stay up but won't have any ads, and he won't have any revenue.

Is your channel even a "partner" channel? If it's just a regular channel you don't get asked, you are just part of the new thing.

And what about this do you not like specifically? Are you unhappy that they didn't wine & dine you?

Yes, it is (not my personal channel obviously). And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.

Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.

> And I couldn't care less how they ask me, I care about how it affects the users. And frankly, your thinly veiled attempt to defend them asking me if I'm unhappy that they "didn't wine & dine" with me is utterly disgusting. This is a bad move for users and a bad move for content creators.

Why? You haven't yet explained what's bad about it.

> Blindly defending Google is very passé, you know.

Blindly attacking Google, however, is very hip these days.

> Why? You haven't yet explained what's bad about it.

The other comments do a great job of that. I don't need to repeat them.

> The other comments do a great job of that.

No, they simply don't. At best you are using circular logic. At worst you don't explain anything.

Again: Forcing content creators into this, is the only sensible option. It's the user-friendliest too, because why the fuck would I pay for an ads-free subscription service, if I then have to watch ads? So, as it's friendly to the users (i.e. the non-content-creators), the only way forcing content creators into the deal could be construed as not user friendly is if it would have any negative effect on content creators.

What is this negative effect? Because I simply can't see any. Why would any content creator be against signing this deal, what are the specific reasons? And your answer can neither be "because it's bad for the users" (it isn't), nor "because they are forcing me to do it". Because that's only sensible and also what every business does all the time, including the place where you shop for groceries. Terms and conditions change and if you don't accept the changes your contract becomes void and you are no longer able to use a service. Any service that ever changes their rules.

I don't understand. How does it affect users?

Or seems to me that this is a pro-user action. People are gradually using ad-blockers because video ads are fucking annoying. People (like myself and my wife) are also using YouTube downloaders to have some content available offline. YouTube Red is exactly what I wanted and if it didn't happen, oh well, I can go back to being a pirate.

If you looked at my comment history you'd see I'm extremely against ad-driven business models so I welcome the idea of this subscription service. What I don't welcome is how they go about it. Forcing your channels to adopt your policy and silently removing videos you could have accessed yesterday is awful.

And you seem to forget that users are often content creators as well on youtube. This is akin to saying "This doesn't affect users on our website, just a subset of them".