> Mass quantities of free, mediocre quality content will give way to something else in this new equilibrium. But what will pay for all the infrastructure? Ther

> Mass quantities of free, mediocre quality content will give way to something else in this new equilibrium. But what will pay for all the infrastructure? There are still a lot of people who just rent a (virtual) server, or rent space on someone else's platform, to post whatever they want. They might have tens, hundreds, thousands of viewers. They could easily scale to even more viewers with the help of some off-the-shelf CDN, while keeping the total expense well within the realm of "hobby spending" for most people in the developed world. Producing and distributing content only costs a lot of money if you want to deliver a lot of content to a lot of people. But I would much prefer a decentralized network where a lot of people each produce and distribute a little bit of content. Each of them would only incur a small expense, if and only if they want to. It will probably cost less than what they're already paying for advertising anyway. Even in a world like that, large content producers who actually have a concrete revenue stream, such as Hollywood studios and a small number of world-famous and/or publicly funded news outlets, will continue to reach billions of people at a time. We don't need to worry about BBC as we say farewell to thousands of content mills who had no reason to exist in the first place.