I personally wouldn’t care that much if youtube went back to how it was back in the day of people sharing for the sake of sharing instead of it being filled with bunch of aspiring infomercial hosts trying to get the bag.
Have to block so many channels because they monopolize the top search results before I see videos from normal folks just uploading to upload because they thought a video would be helpful.
Creators are paid based on those views if they’re willing to be dependent on them.
There are many, many ways for a content creator to be supported (and a viewer/follower to support them) without relying on Google: Kofi, OpenCollective, even Patreon, to name a few. And there are platforms specifically paid by the viewer, such as Nebula.
It’s worth mentioning: donation is a thing and many do donation-based projects. It can be even a direct bank transfer from a viewer to the bank account of the content creator. I say this as someone who did support content creators and donated to them. In the past, I used to pay for membership for two specific Youtube channels, back when I still used to use Youtube. When I stopped using Youtube, I went from YT membership to direct, bank transfer to both creators behind these channels. I wished they would choose to use some private PeerTube instance/channel (it’s a thing) or even Nebula, but they stubbornly chose to stick to Google’s walled garden, unfortunately leaving me with no choice but to stop watching them both.
The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn’t get money from you just watching the video.
To authors of works getting compensated for sharing their efforts. So here it’s a video content on a website, but also any other works on any other protocol.
A lot of people either don’t want to pay, or can’t pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we’re a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.
If it were sensibly prized I would have no issue with paying for YouTube. But seeing as they almost ask for the same as Netflix and co while not producing any content, I decided for the adblocker instead
They do not produce content, but they share 70% of revenue with the creators. You can argue that’s not enough, but it’s definitely more than Netflix et al pay their content creators.
(shrug) don’t care if it affects views, never should have had them in videos regardless.
Creators are paid based on those views, so that would matter.
I personally wouldn’t care that much if youtube went back to how it was back in the day of people sharing for the sake of sharing instead of it being filled with bunch of aspiring infomercial hosts trying to get the bag.
Have to block so many channels because they monopolize the top search results before I see videos from normal folks just uploading to upload because they thought a video would be helpful.
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Creators are paid based on those views if they’re willing to be dependent on them.
There are many, many ways for a content creator to be supported (and a viewer/follower to support them) without relying on Google: Kofi, OpenCollective, even Patreon, to name a few. And there are platforms specifically paid by the viewer, such as Nebula.
It’s worth mentioning: donation is a thing and many do donation-based projects. It can be even a direct bank transfer from a viewer to the bank account of the content creator. I say this as someone who did support content creators and donated to them. In the past, I used to pay for membership for two specific Youtube channels, back when I still used to use Youtube. When I stopped using Youtube, I went from YT membership to direct, bank transfer to both creators behind these channels. I wished they would choose to use some private PeerTube instance/channel (it’s a thing) or even Nebula, but they stubbornly chose to stick to Google’s walled garden, unfortunately leaving me with no choice but to stop watching them both.
The only real alternatives to ads are either paying for the content, or having someone else pay for you. The latter is the case with something like PeerTube - someone else is covering the cost of the server and bandwidth without asking you for payment, and the creator doesn’t get money from you just watching the video.
i really don’t care
rather do without than with ads
Paying to access content makes a lot more sense that hoping someone willingly watches an advert on their own hardware.
An indirect, alternate could be universal basic income - which makes it easier for people to choose less profitable options.
Just so we’re clear, you’re proposing UBI as a solution to a global website showing ads
To authors of works getting compensated for sharing their efforts. So here it’s a video content on a website, but also any other works on any other protocol.
Right. Turns out UBI is a solution to a lot of things.
A lot of people either don’t want to pay, or can’t pay (eg people in developing nations with very low income). I agree that UBI would help, but we’re a long way off from that being a standard thing in one country, let alone worldwide.
Those people who can’t pay aren’t really worth anything to advertise to, though.
If it were sensibly prized I would have no issue with paying for YouTube. But seeing as they almost ask for the same as Netflix and co while not producing any content, I decided for the adblocker instead
They do not produce content, but they share 70% of revenue with the creators. You can argue that’s not enough, but it’s definitely more than Netflix et al pay their content creators.
Had what in videos?
Ads