Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though.
3+4. You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”. YouTube was (and still is if I understand it correctly) barely profitable, and if it is profitable right now I’m sure it is because of the worst kind of data-mining.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4.
Hard disagree.
You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”.
…of course you can?
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content,
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable
Incorrect again.
As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
Sort of agreed, not really relevant to the parent comment though. 3+4.
Hard disagree.
You can’t have both “no ads allowed in-video” and “creators are paid a majority share of the money we make serving the video”.
…of course you can?
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content,
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable
Incorrect again.
As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
It is way harder to provide an effective platform for content than it is to deliver actual content, especially as effort/content has close to zero effect on vitality/attention/profitability, while the aspects we want in a platform (especially in regards to privacy) are entirely unprofitable. As someone who uses adblock and generally dislikes the corporate aspect of YouTube I at least has to acknowledge that YouTube has to make money somehow, and that in-video sponsors seems like a win-win for everyone involved, especially when you can skip them pretty much effortlessly.
Normally I wouldn’t even comment this shit, but as we are (hopefully) part of a shift to actual community driven platforms (fediverse in general), I think we have to aggressively discuss how to monetize these platforms enough that they don’t actively drain the wallets of the people maintaining them, and this is a very relevant aspect of that discussion.
Hopefully not too ranty, extremely inebriated.
It doesn’t happen if you used Piped.
Hard disagree.
…of course you can?
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
Incorrect again.
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.
It doesn’t happen if you used Piped.
Hard disagree.
…of course you can?
No, it isn’t. You can spin up a PeerTube instance in a matter of a few hours. Odysee manages to do it just fine.
Incorrect again.
Not only does YouTube not have to make money, it actually doesn’t make money. It is primarily a data-mining operation for Google. Google, on the other hand, is one of the most profitable corporations in the world, so forgive me if I don’t consider their bottom line when making ethical decisions.
Except for, ya know, the users, who are subjected yet another ad in their life. I honestly don’t understand how people tolerate ads in every facet of their lives.
It’s noth that complicated. Just let the creators decide. There are 3 categories:
Free videos. The ones anyone can watch with no ads. No one makes any money, they’re just for the enjoyment of viewers and creators. And also to help creators gain clout in the early stages.
Paid advertisements. Again, anyone can choose to watch these but they must be disclosed and labeled accordingly.
Premium videos. Think Patreon, except users pay a subscription, the host collects a SMALL fee, and the majority of the income goes directly to creators.
Data is only stored for users who opt in at sign-up, and it is never sold to third parties.
Maybe that’s a pipe dream for a company to be so ethical but it seems like a totally viable business model to me.