38 ms·

I would much rather pay the content creators with YouTube Premium than by using an ad blocker.

by ElijahLynn 6y ago

jacobush 6y ago
You also pay Google, which is much worse.
- coldpie 6y ago
  I don't know if I agree. I like showing that revenue models that are not ad-based can be viable. Maybe we can break the ad-supported business model that has destroyed the web by showing there are alternatives.
  - madacoo 6y ago
    This would seem to be contingent on paying businesses that don't rely on ad-based revenue models. Rather than paying a company on top of their ad-based revenue. Afterall, it might be the case that non ad-based revenue is only viable once you've secured enough ad-based revenue. I hope that isn't the case though.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    Google should be broken up. It’s a rent-seeking behemoth no longer innovating except in ever tuned rent seeking.
ekianjo 6y ago
I'm sure Google needs your financial support.
- rnet85 6y ago
  I’m constantly surprised At how people think video hosting costs nothing.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    I'm constantly surprised that people think Google/Alphabet is bleeding money and making no profits.
wlll 6y ago
How much of your money goes to the creators do you reckon compared to something like Patreon?
- dudus 6y ago
  Patreon reportedly takes 5%. Youtube Premium takes 45% according to [1]. But it's also a very different model, where patreon requires that you signup for a specific channel, and youtube distributes your money based on watch time. So in theory Youtube's model is better for small creators without a large community. Another way to see it is that youtube provides you with discoverability while Patreon does not, usually creators will have Patreon in addition to Youtube where they get discovered and sell their Patreon. Youtube also has a subscription similar to Patreon, available only to larger creators and they take 30% off that, according to [2]. While this seems high compared to Patreon it's actually lower than Twitch that takes 50% off subscriptions. Twitch also offer a bit system that is like a tip, and has a lower percentage. Another datapoint is OnlyFans, used mostly for porn and takes 60%. IMO the platforms are very distinct and their offers are fairly different. It's not a fair comparison. [1] https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/youtube-premium-remains-small-potatoes-video-publishers/#:~:text=YouTube%20Premium%20subscription%20revenue%2C%20meanwhile,the%20YouTube%20Premium%20audience%20wants https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/youtube-premium-remains-sma.... [2] https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/21/17484006/channel-subscription-youtube-twitch-monetization-emotes-emoji-price#:~:text=Update%20(June%2022)%3A%20YouTube,for%20its%20own%20%244.99%20tag https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/21/17484006/channel-subscript....
  - simias 6y ago
    It makes sense for Youtube to take a big share of the money given that they have to host and stream the videos but how can OnlyFans justify to get an even bigger share? Aren't they effectively Patreon for (mostly) porn? If there's so much money to make in this sector why isn't there more competition?
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Their USP may be that they navigate the problem of payment providers etc. Getting money for porn and weed is notoriously hard because very few of the intermediary participants are willing to play along if that's the use case. For instance, see Paypal https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full > You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: > ...relate to transactions involving... > ...certain sexually oriented materials or services...
keb_ 6y ago
If your concern is for supporting content creators, and if you have any reservations about the intrusiveness of adtrackers -- and also maybe you'd like to conserve your system resources when you browse the web -- wouldn't it make much more sense to support the content creators you enjoy directly through Patreon and use an adblocker instead?
- coldpie 6y ago
  You're positing that YouTube itself provides no value, but I strongly disagree with that. I find YouTube to be very pleasant to use, I have found a lot of great stuff through their discovery algorithm, and obviously the bandwidth and storage itself isn't free. I think it's worth paying for. Separately from that, I also support several creators on Patreon directly. And yes, I use an ad blocker. You'd be crazy not to.
  - keb_ 6y ago
    No, I was not positing that YouTube itself provides no value -- I was responding to a comment that asserted their reason for subscribing to YouTube Premium was to support content creators. I suggested an alternative. Personally, I do not disagree that YouTube is worth paying for. But I have reservations because I believe their parent company (Google) already profits tremendously in morally objectionable ways. Thus, I try to avoid giving them my business as much as possible. Unfortunately, the reality is Google (and YouTube) are practically impossible to compete with in all things data. To play devil's advocate: you say you use adblocker (I assume you use it on sites other than YouTube) -- but why? Because the modern web is practically unbearable without it? But is there not an implicit contract when you visit a website and consume their bandwidth, that you view the ads? Are you not, in effect, stealing? Sure, advertisers don't have the right to your attention, but don't the content creators have the right to your financial support?
    - coldpie 6y ago
      I feel we are talking past each other. I apologize for missing your original point.
ww520 6y ago
Pay the Patreon accounts of the content creators directly to let them get the maximum benefit.
- filleduchaos 6y ago
  Great, so only a handful of content creators you know to follow get anything and the creators of all the one-off videos you watch and benefit from get nothing.
  - keb_ 6y ago
    Why do they get nothing? If you find value in their one-off videos, throw them a couple bucks. If they don't have a Paypal, Patreon, Liberapay, etc -- just watch a video of theirs with adblock temporarily disabled.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
squeaky-clean 6y ago
I won't give youtube my money until they do something about the overabuse of copyright claims to steal monetization from legitimate users. Until then Nebula and Patreon get my money.

I would much rather pay the content creators with YouTube Premium than by using an ad blocker.

jacobush 6y ago

You also pay Google, which is much worse.

coldpie 6y ago
I don't know if I agree. I like showing that revenue models that are not ad-based can be viable. Maybe we can break the ad-supported business model that has destroyed the web by showing there are alternatives.
- madacoo 6y ago
  This would seem to be contingent on paying businesses that don't rely on ad-based revenue models. Rather than paying a company on top of their ad-based revenue. Afterall, it might be the case that non ad-based revenue is only viable once you've secured enough ad-based revenue. I hope that isn't the case though.
- jacobush 6y ago
  Google should be broken up. It’s a rent-seeking behemoth no longer innovating except in ever tuned rent seeking.

ekianjo 6y ago

I'm sure Google needs your financial support.

rnet85 6y ago
I’m constantly surprised At how people think video hosting costs nothing.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  I'm constantly surprised that people think Google/Alphabet is bleeding money and making no profits.

wlll 6y ago

How much of your money goes to the creators do you reckon compared to something like Patreon?

dudus 6y ago
Patreon reportedly takes 5%. Youtube Premium takes 45% according to [1]. But it's also a very different model, where patreon requires that you signup for a specific channel, and youtube distributes your money based on watch time. So in theory Youtube's model is better for small creators without a large community. Another way to see it is that youtube provides you with discoverability while Patreon does not, usually creators will have Patreon in addition to Youtube where they get discovered and sell their Patreon. Youtube also has a subscription similar to Patreon, available only to larger creators and they take 30% off that, according to [2]. While this seems high compared to Patreon it's actually lower than Twitch that takes 50% off subscriptions. Twitch also offer a bit system that is like a tip, and has a lower percentage. Another datapoint is OnlyFans, used mostly for porn and takes 60%. IMO the platforms are very distinct and their offers are fairly different. It's not a fair comparison. [1] https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/youtube-premium-remains-small-potatoes-video-publishers/#:~:text=YouTube%20Premium%20subscription%20revenue%2C%20meanwhile,the%20YouTube%20Premium%20audience%20wants https://digiday.com/future-of-tv/youtube-premium-remains-sma.... [2] https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/21/17484006/channel-subscription-youtube-twitch-monetization-emotes-emoji-price#:~:text=Update%20(June%2022)%3A%20YouTube,for%20its%20own%20%244.99%20tag https://www.polygon.com/2018/6/21/17484006/channel-subscript....
- simias 6y ago
  It makes sense for Youtube to take a big share of the money given that they have to host and stream the videos but how can OnlyFans justify to get an even bigger share? Aren't they effectively Patreon for (mostly) porn? If there's so much money to make in this sector why isn't there more competition?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Their USP may be that they navigate the problem of payment providers etc. Getting money for porn and weed is notoriously hard because very few of the intermediary participants are willing to play along if that's the use case. For instance, see Paypal https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/acceptableuse-full > You may not use the PayPal service for activities that: > ...relate to transactions involving... > ...certain sexually oriented materials or services...

keb_ 6y ago

If your concern is for supporting content creators, and if you have any reservations about the intrusiveness of adtrackers -- and also maybe you'd like to conserve your system resources when you browse the web -- wouldn't it make much more sense to support the content creators you enjoy directly through Patreon and use an adblocker instead?

coldpie 6y ago
You're positing that YouTube itself provides no value, but I strongly disagree with that. I find YouTube to be very pleasant to use, I have found a lot of great stuff through their discovery algorithm, and obviously the bandwidth and storage itself isn't free. I think it's worth paying for. Separately from that, I also support several creators on Patreon directly. And yes, I use an ad blocker. You'd be crazy not to.
- keb_ 6y ago
  No, I was not positing that YouTube itself provides no value -- I was responding to a comment that asserted their reason for subscribing to YouTube Premium was to support content creators. I suggested an alternative. Personally, I do not disagree that YouTube is worth paying for. But I have reservations because I believe their parent company (Google) already profits tremendously in morally objectionable ways. Thus, I try to avoid giving them my business as much as possible. Unfortunately, the reality is Google (and YouTube) are practically impossible to compete with in all things data. To play devil's advocate: you say you use adblocker (I assume you use it on sites other than YouTube) -- but why? Because the modern web is practically unbearable without it? But is there not an implicit contract when you visit a website and consume their bandwidth, that you view the ads? Are you not, in effect, stealing? Sure, advertisers don't have the right to your attention, but don't the content creators have the right to your financial support?
  - coldpie 6y ago
    I feel we are talking past each other. I apologize for missing your original point.

ww520 6y ago

Pay the Patreon accounts of the content creators directly to let them get the maximum benefit.

filleduchaos 6y ago
Great, so only a handful of content creators you know to follow get anything and the creators of all the one-off videos you watch and benefit from get nothing.
- keb_ 6y ago
  Why do they get nothing? If you find value in their one-off videos, throw them a couple bucks. If they don't have a Paypal, Patreon, Liberapay, etc -- just watch a video of theirs with adblock temporarily disabled.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

squeaky-clean 6y ago

I won't give youtube my money until they do something about the overabuse of copyright claims to steal monetization from legitimate users. Until then Nebula and Patreon get my money.