• While there are a billion things Google does that annoys me I’m not able to figure out how to create and maintain a video streaming platform without ads or paywall that finances both creation and the providing material.

    I mean, who are the competitors and how do they finance it if not in a similar way?

    • I’d argue Youtube was better when creators weren’t paid and people were just having genuine fun. The internet used to be free and filled with content by people with passion. Much like users and the current state of the fediverse.

      • I can absolutely understand that point of view and even agree to an extent.

        However, as a counterpoint: creative people being able to support themselves with their work means they can focus on their art instead of it just being a side hobby to their money making job

        • Yes, but then you get channels like Linus Tech Tips where it became less about product reviews and just about volume production garbage content and forced contraversial content to keep revenue stream.

            • Anytime it is your primary income there is built in propensity to stray to ensure you income is maintained when viewership might wane. I think the channels where a dude works full time and youtube is the side gig has more chance of maintaining integrity.

              • A channel where a dude works full time and YouTube is a side gig wouldn’t buy a $250k sound chamber to measure how loud the fans are on a crappy prebuilt (GN - the people who made the initial video about LTT). There are significant benefits to being full time dedicated to creating this content, and being paid well in response. Something like this would only be possible following your model if they already made tons of money outside of YT, in which case, they’re already rich so what’s stopping them from going full time doing what they want anyway and uploading those videos?

      •  Hexorg   ( @Hexorg@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        You bring a great point I hadn’t considered before. Only people with passion for something will do it for free while many more people with so that for cash. Though it’s interesting to see that cash doesn’t make passionate people’s content better it just makes more mediocre content.

          • There’s also a class issue at play. If it can only be an unpaid hobby, then only people with the time to dedicate to it (in lieu of a second paying gig) and the disposable income to buy the necessary equipment (financed entirely by their paid job) are able to participate. For example, I work with people who are also working artists. They use the income from selling their art from their hobby to pay for those materials. It’s not enough to live off, so it’s not their primary income, but they wouldn’t be able to participate in their hobby at the level they currently are if they weren’t able to sell their work. Allowing people to profit from their labor makes these spaces more inclusive and diverse.

    • paywall that finances both creation and the providing material.

      Finance creation? It promotes lazy copycat contents. Even respectful (at least before their YouTube career) tech/artisan/DIYers etc are falling for the clickbait, the YouTube’s basic/teen humor… I pass on the tabloid stuff.

      You want to make views. use these keywords:

      • Apple
      • I spent $$$ on …
      • AI

      The thing is that platform is just a TV.
      I guess content creators should also pay for their access on the platform, not just a cut on the revenue. it will enforce good/honest creation .

      • You might criticize the content all you want but it’s another discussion for another time. The question is still it still how to finance a site like YouTube, with the content and amount of viewers it has, without ads or fees.

        Your solution with content owners/creators paying for the housing of their creation is Vimeo.

        Not even close to YouTube