Because the platform does actually deserver a share, too?
We’d be living in a very different world if we hadn’t grown entitled to free shit because ads, and were actually paying for services that, you know, cost money to provide. The “ad supported” business model is utterly broken, dead, and gone, and was only ever able to support low-cost services like email and social media… But video streaming? By all accounts, it makes no sense.
And on top of that, YouTube’s revenue share is by far the most generous in the industry. There’s a reason creators ditch twitch, tiktok, etc. for it, even without the sign-on bonuses that other platforms have to resort to.
Ah, yes, I can see the poor company is suffering, nevermind, I prefer my money to go to shareholders who have their life solved rather than towards creators who are making amazing content yet aren’t making a living yet /s
So you just… never buy anything? Do you shoplift your candy bars, too, since they are probably made by a company that makes more than enough already?
YouTube is trying to move away from a shit business model, to a much more fair one. One that’s more fair for the platform, more fair for the creator, and more fair for the user. Because guess what, taking shit for free, was never fair. I’m not paying to support google. I’m paying to support common sense.
The size of a business doesn’t come into that. A mom and pop car service shop that scams their customers with technobabble, would be just as deserving of bankruptcy as facebook is.
And paying for premium isn’t mutually exclusive with donations, or supporting through patreon(which guess what, also takes a cut), when you find creators who you think deserve it. But you can’t claim to be righteous if you pay for the food a farmer grew, while the truck driver who actually brought it to you is standing right there, unpaid. Yes, his cut should not be large, but he should get one.
The concept of fairness for Youtube gets out of the equation at the very moment we’re talking about a natural monopoly with the capacities to accumulate immense wealth, for the mere virtue of having the lead, and bend the knees of anyone who thinks their policies are not fair, but cannot find a viable alternative.
Yeah I’m not a fan of their lead either, but until peertube or something else, like floatplane or nebula, lets me interact with the type and amount of content youtube hosts…
I will vote for the least evil path I can find. And yes, I think paying youtube to remove the fourth party in the transaction, advertisers, is that option.
Because the platform does actually deserver a share, too?
We’d be living in a very different world if we hadn’t grown entitled to free shit because ads, and were actually paying for services that, you know, cost money to provide. The “ad supported” business model is utterly broken, dead, and gone, and was only ever able to support low-cost services like email and social media… But video streaming? By all accounts, it makes no sense.
And on top of that, YouTube’s revenue share is by far the most generous in the industry. There’s a reason creators ditch twitch, tiktok, etc. for it, even without the sign-on bonuses that other platforms have to resort to.
Ah, yes, I can see the poor company is suffering, nevermind, I prefer my money to go to shareholders who have their life solved rather than towards creators who are making amazing content yet aren’t making a living yet /s
So you just… never buy anything? Do you shoplift your candy bars, too, since they are probably made by a company that makes more than enough already?
YouTube is trying to move away from a shit business model, to a much more fair one. One that’s more fair for the platform, more fair for the creator, and more fair for the user. Because guess what, taking shit for free, was never fair. I’m not paying to support google. I’m paying to support common sense.
The size of a business doesn’t come into that. A mom and pop car service shop that scams their customers with technobabble, would be just as deserving of bankruptcy as facebook is.
And paying for premium isn’t mutually exclusive with donations, or supporting through patreon(which guess what, also takes a cut), when you find creators who you think deserve it. But you can’t claim to be righteous if you pay for the food a farmer grew, while the truck driver who actually brought it to you is standing right there, unpaid. Yes, his cut should not be large, but he should get one.
The concept of fairness for Youtube gets out of the equation at the very moment we’re talking about a natural monopoly with the capacities to accumulate immense wealth, for the mere virtue of having the lead, and bend the knees of anyone who thinks their policies are not fair, but cannot find a viable alternative.
No shades of grey for you, huh.
Yeah I’m not a fan of their lead either, but until peertube or something else, like floatplane or nebula, lets me interact with the type and amount of content youtube hosts…
I will vote for the least evil path I can find. And yes, I think paying youtube to remove the fourth party in the transaction, advertisers, is that option.
Adblock is not.