that have an AI generated thumbnail and when I’ve viewed some of them there’s been no apparent AI use in the video.

That’s what I’m trying to say here as well.

How is it that every time a comments starts with “So you’re saying…” it’s the followed up with something I did not say.

What does that have to do with whether right-leaning people are for or against unions?

That’s a statement, not an argument.

As a heavy YouTube user this simply is not my experience. Not that it never happens, but it’s not the default to the point that you can just assume that. In most cases your assumption is wrong.

Gaming YouTube is probably the clearest example. Everyone has an AI thumbnail and nobody has AI content in the video itself. Same applies to renovation, car mechanic, woodworking, machining, van life etc. Virtually everyone has 100% organic content but with an AI thumbnail.

AI content only starts appearing when you move to videos that used to heavily rely on stock video content or for example videos about history where real footage is not available. I assume it’s also the case often with short-form media but I wouldn’t know as I don’t consume any.

Someone is still paying for hosting that content. That works for text, pictures and gifs but once you move to videos it starts getting expensive. I too put content on YouTube without any intention to make money from it but I still understand that it costs YouTube money.

I’m all for passion projects but it still needs to be sustainable one way or another.

Unions are quite common in trades and that field is heavily populated by right-leaning people who are very much for those unions.

“All police everywhere…”

One single exception is all it takes to debunk an absolute claim.

As someone who has used AdBlocker for as long as I can remember, I can’t come up with a single reason why sites should allow it. Exact same thing with the YouTube controversy. Of course I don’t like that they’re trying to prevent me from blocking the ads but I sure don’t blame them for it. Using an adblocker doesn’t necessitate for me to come up with justifications for convincing myself that what I’m doing is actually moral because it’s not. I’m perfectly capable of holding both of these two thoughts in my mind at the same time.

My test for whether behaviour is good or not is to consider what the world would be like if everyone did what I do and whether we’d all be better off for it. There one thing is for absolute certain: YouTube would not exist as a free platform. It would either not exist at all or it would be a subscription-based only.

You can have an ad-free service or you can have a free one but you can’t have both and demanding that is ridiculous. Even now, the sole reason you’re able to use Lemmy for free is because someone else is willing to take the financial hit by paying for the instance upkeep. We all just take it for granted.

If they’re using ai for the thumbnail… they’re probably using AI elsewhere in the video.

One does not automatically follow from the other. I simply use a screenshot from the video because I don’t care about views but for the people who do care, a good (as in makes people click) thumbnail is extremely important - perhaps eventhe most important. Making a thumbnail like that by hand is not easy, but with the assist from AI it is and most people don’t care. This militant anti-AI activism is by a small and vocal minority group of people. There’s no point in spending hours in Photoshop when AI does it better in 15 minutes and now you have 10 options to choose from.

I don’t like it nor do I usually watch those videos but I surely don’t blame them for doing it. It’s a ruthless game played on YouTube’s terms and this is what it takes if you wish to even get a chance as a small creator.

I’m simply countering your claim that rich people do nothing but collect rent. They in-fact fund almost everything that’s paid with tax-payer money.

The top 1% of earners in the US pays 38.4% of all income tax and the top 10% paid 70.5% of it. The bottom 50% paid 3.3%. These are from 2023.

How does one follow from the other? You’re just making a statement without any explanation about your reasoning.

If contributing to the economy the most means lower taxes then doesn’t that suggest that the people with lowest income would be the ones taxed the highest? Doesn’t quite fit my sense of fairness.

I would say that one could make the claim that one brand of coffee is bad compared to another one but if someone tells me that they like the cheap store brand instant coffee then who am I to argue with their subjective experience.

I think there’s been a study about wine as well that people who are used to the taste of cheap wine generally don’t enjoy the expensive ones. Not because they’re bad but because it’s not what they’re used to.

Doesn’t matter if you get hit in the face by a fallen brick.

Often not getting into a situation in the first place is far better than being in the right.