Soon, You Might Have to Pay to Subscribe to YouTube Channels


YouTube has reached out to several major video production houses and asked them to submit applications for channels which will require payment for viewers to subscribe, Reuters has reported today.

Reuters cited AdAge, which cited anonymous sources saying that the first paid subscription channel will be available by the second quarter of this year. Viewers may have to pay for subscribing to those channels for a certain amount of monthly fee which could be anywhere between $1 to $5.

YouTube, acquired and now owned by Google, Inc. is the world’s most popular video-sharing website. The site itself has a vast amount of income by Google advertisements. It shares some of the revenue with top publishers whose videos are viewed a lot of times. However, YouTube does not seem to be happy with its current figure of earning as it’s looking to go beyond and make viewers pay.

But money may not be the only thing YouTube is seeking.

YouTube wants to add professional-grade video programs to its online archive of millions of video clips, most of which are amateur and valueless to general audience. While other video sharing websites such as Vimeo are providing users a chance to pay and get additional advantages over their account, YouTube is seeming doing the opposite as their target is the professional folks, not the viewers.

YouTube boss Salar Kamangar told Reuters back in June that some YouTube video producers were demanding that viewersget to pay a fee to watch some of the programs. This could be what YouTube is currently going for.

By the end of 2013, we’ll definitely know. Let’s just hope it won’t turn viewers away. Not everyone is happy to pay, right?


Retweet is Now a Word in Concise Oxford Dictionary

Every time you see a ‘share-worthy’ tweet on your timeline, what do you do? Yes, you hit the retweet button twice. First to actually retweet, and second time to confirm that you’ll retweet. You’ll what?

Retweet is a common word used in Twitter. In 2008, twitter users used “RT @username” method to share a tweet with their followers. However, that technically didn’t do anything. That RT in the beginning meant that it was a retweet and the @ followed by twitter username meant that it was a reply. In 2009, twitter officially rolled out the retweet option which is now an independent feature on Twitter.

Not only that, the word is used so often across twitter and across the web that it made into the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Along with ‘retweet’, ‘sexting’ is another word that made its place there.

Facebook Says Everyone Should Expose Their Identity

It’s not Facebook’s official announcement, but when Facebook’s marketing director says so, we feel tempted to say it’s said by Facebook.

facebook online anonymity has to go away
Randi Zuckerberg’s photo from her Facebook album [].

Named Randi Zuckerberg, the youngest billionaire’s sister and Marketing Director of Facebook argues that anonymity online has to go away in order to stop cyberbullying. She says people put anonymity as their identity to talk and behave like being behind closed door. People behave much better when they use their real name.

Marie Claire magazine hosted a panel discussion on social media this Tuesday evening where Randi Zuckerberg said her thoughts on cyberbullying.

However, user reaction to this thought has been widely negative. As seen on many news blogs including The Huffington Post, users arguing online anonymity is a necessity. Nicknamed “Dante,” a comment author on HuffPost wrote, “I have been accused of many things by very angry people who misconstrue my political views as crimes against their god, or the words of a scientist-­therefore-­heretic. I don’t feel safe in my own home, with my postal address, phone numbers and email addresses known to almost everyone, in real life.”

The blog also quoted GigaOm’s article by Matthew Ingram, “Many people believe that requiring real names will solve the problems of trolls and bad behavior, but they don’t — and that policy can have negative consequences in terms of suppressing dialogue about important topics.”

Do you think killing online anonymity will solve all the problems without creating any addition — and greater — problems?