this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
1083 points (100.0% liked)

Memes

1354 readers
37 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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?

[–] MaxHardwood@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

I really just hate the "influencer culture" it spawned, and every idiot trying to emulate that meta instead of just making content.

[–] Makeshift@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AngryMob@lemmy.one 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You also get countless other smaller channels that are just large enough to have youtube be their primary income, but small enough where they stay true to their original intent.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TehPers 1 points 1 year ago

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 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, people with a passion also want to do what they do for a living.

[–] dominotheory@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Hexorg 2 points 1 year ago

Certainly - and there still are those channels that we all love for their dedication. But there are a lot more mediocre channels too

[–] Haywire@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

I'm a little torn on this and I think it is relevant beyond video. I can see an emerging non-commercial web coexisting with the commercial one.

[–] jeanma@lemmy.ninja 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 .

[–] mindlight@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

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

Just use PeerTube or Jellyfin.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Yea of all the things to bitch about with Google, this one's pretty understandable tbh