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 (11 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.

[–] 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

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)