That's a needlessly hostile remark. This is part of my point. A content platform is a two-sided market, and you can't unilaterally defect from a Nash equilibrium. Back in 2017, YouTube wasn't running unskippable investment-scam and tobacco ads. They were doing their best to attract content viewers and producers away from competitors by offering a good experience. Once they'd driven the alternatives to the ground and achieved network lock-in, they began twisting the screws, gradually running ever more intrusive and distasteful ads.
Nebula might have a shot at breaking the stranglehold, and I support them, but it remains to be seen if they can do it. A lot of content creators would have to move there, and there's a lot of random stuff (recorded lectures, video instructions, music, etc) that probably never will because it doesn't fit their premium original content model.
I used to pay Nebula precisely because they had premium original content, however they let in a lot of other creators to widen the (see the tyranny of the marginal user) type of content. I've since canceled my subscription because it's gotten bloated with too much lower quality content.
The whole point of Nebula is NOT to become another YT, it's meant to be curated source of media.
Not without getting a whole bunch of crap I'm not interested in. I suspect once stablecoins are legit, there will be infrastructure that will make direct payments to content creators possible. It will unlock the mythical dream we all had to only pay for the things you wanted to see.
Vid.me.was loved and celebrated as an escape from YouTube. I'm not sure what makes you think YT wasn't hated in 2017 too, premium had already been out for 2 years and any casual glance at comments from back then make it clear people were not happy.
Nebula has no shot. It has a <1% conversion rate. Creators make almost nothing from it compared to their yt channel.
My point is that the fundamental problem with the Internet and Internet services is the users entitlement to free things. The Internet would be a dramatically better place if it worked for users and not for advertisers. Vid.me was dramatically better, but it died learning that 99% of people in threads like this is full of shit and actually just entitled.
> YouTube channels earn revenue from viewers with YouTube Premium. Throughout this month (August 2018), I earned approximately 55p per 1000 regular views and 94p per 1000 Premium views, so it appears that if 75% of your viewers went Premium, that would actually be beneficial.
> Per user, creators usually get a LOT more from premium than ads. If I divide my monthly views by my monthly unique viewers, I get about 1.9 cents per viewer.
> The way premium works is, first youtube takes a cut--I believe it's 45%. The remaining amount is divided among all the creators you watch based on how much you watch them. I believe that's based on view time.
> So if the YT premium price is $13.99, the creators get 55% or $7.69. You would have to watch 405 different creators for each one to get 1.9 cents.
I used to, but I don't consume enough YouTube videos anymore to make it worthwhile. Give me a top-up plan that I can use to pay for individual videos and I will definitely do it.
But what's with the weirdly aggressive second part of your message?
There are not enough people with your willingness to make this mechanism work by itself.
So the choice is either to have the content exist, but rely on ads, or not have the content exist. And it's not your choice - it's the content creator's choice.
You can pay for Youtube Premium right now and the ads go away.
For a long time, my criticism was that Youtube Premium is needlessly bundled with Youtube Music, which is redundant for me as a Spotify user and which I refused to pay for accordingly.
Now, in at least a few countries, there's "Youtube Premium Lite", which is basically regular Youtube but without ads. If you live in one of these, in my view that's close to the ideal scenario: Everybody gets to choose between watching ads and paying.
I just subscribe to YouTube Premium. From what I hear, views from Premium viewers are worth more to the creators than ad funded views, and I don’t need to deal with deciding which patreons to back, and spend 10x (or more) trying to pay for each individual.
Perhaps controversial, but I rather just have ads. Not that I do not think this is a preferable model, but rather, donates cost real money and ads cost nothing except time.
While time is finite and valuable, if I am already on YouTube, then I have already committed to choice of wasting that nebulous amount of time in the first place.
I’d absolutely rather give money. For me there’s a lot less friction in that even if technically it costs time all the same. With a job I have control over how I convert time into money; not so with watching ads.
As much as youtube can waste time, I also feel like I’ve been given genuine value by certain people on the site, so I wouldn’t say it’s simply wasting time.
I watch quite a large array of channels. I am not sure I could feasibly afford to donate a meaningful amount to all them. So then, I am forced into the dilemma of deciding which ones are more worthy than others, and that is not something I am particularly willing to do.
If one's patreon did have perks associated with it, then I would be more inclined to 'donate', as well.
I feel perfectly able to decide where to allocate money. For instance, one channel has functionally introduced me to modern philosophy and inspired me to start reading a ton. I took a class and read a bunch of books I otherwise wouldn’t have. Another channel makes funny ten minute joke videos once a month. I feel totally okay giving the former way more money; they’ve provided me more value by a long shot.
Patreon is also getting enshittified, grandfathering rates for the legacy people who give it a network effect, and then jacking them up on new creators to take advantage of their moat.
Unsurprising. I sort of feel this is just the natural cycle of the company structure, and that we have to hope any enshittifying service eventually gets bad enough to drive a large group to another platform earlier in its lifecycle. I’d support creators on any other platform if they offered to take money on it, but there’s only so much I can do as the person giving the money.
If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
So if I don't like Visa and Mastercard, do I also get moral carte blanche to not pay anyone because hey I'm totally urging them to only use merchants that I prefer?
Sounds like awfully convenient motivated reasoning.
That’s how the market works. You avoid paying extra taxes than required right? Even though that denies the government extra funding. The only difference being one has been decided as wrong and the other is fine.
Yes, society has deemed that it’s fine to make use of the avenues that have been explicitly created to reduce your tax burden - that’s why they were created. Society is also relatively fine with using unintended loopholes for the same purpose (although it is a lot more controversial and criticized), because we don’t tend to punish people for breaking laws, rules and regulations that don’t exist. When we end up caring a lot about them, we plug the gaps
The other person was talking about straight up not paying for goods and services that are sold at a given price, which is stealing. The more apt comparison would be to tax evasion (actually breaking the law), which is a crime, widely considered wrong and punished accordingly
It isn't how the market works, and you absolutely don't take this line of reasoning when paying someone rendering services to you which is why you instead tried to analogize it with taxes.
You only use this argument for Youtube content creators because it's trivial to avoid payment and then backsplain it with unique moral justifications.
Arent Visa and Mastercard defacto global monopolies that have had many controversies in the oast or bowed to outside pressure, refusing to handle payments for many perfectly legal businesses ?
The metaphor doesn't work because I can still pay in cash. A better metaphor would be choosing not to tip the waiter because you don't believe in the custom of tipping
Seems awfully convenient.