It will be near the top of the list of fonts since it begins with “A”. I think that was what they were getting at.

Well, let’s face it: logistics and executive details aren’t something he is good at. He may have just assumed that since he said it, someone else would make it so. That is, as you say, “painfully on brand.”

I don’t think there is anything wrong with paying for what you consider to be value. I pay for Nebula for similar reasons. Similarly, I don’t have a problem with free services including modest ads to cover their costs and even make a profit.

I do have a problem with ads that have gotten so aggressive that the free experience becomes unusable. For many providers, I feel like they have lured in content creators by promising free access and then changed the bargain after the fact by making the free tier intolerable.

YouTube is a great resource…it just seems weird how precarious it is. You have all these creators who have spent countless hours creating high quality content for them (and even more low quality content!) and all of it could go away in an instant depending on the whims of a large corporation. Sure, some people have managed to make a lot of money from their YouTube content…but not as much as Google has! They can change the rules any time they want and most of their creators have no recourse.

YouTube could disallow this kind of script any time that they wanted and what could Tom Scott do about it? I haven’t watched this video in a while, but I seem to recall it ties in with his thesis.

High quality creators (of which, Tom Scott is one) need to find ways to own their own distribution or at least get firm contractual control over the terms of its distribution. They are the engine that drive the YouTube economy and my guess is that most do not get to share in anything but crumbs of the revenue they bring in.

Neccessity is the mother of federation!