3 ms·

> normally platforms also have to pay for content ? This doesn't seem generically true to me. Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Instagram, Vin

> normally platforms also have to pay for content ? This doesn't seem generically true to me. Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Instagram, Vine, FourSquare, Yelp, Pinterest, DeviantArt, LiveJournal, Xanga, Medium, etc. None of these platforms pay for user-generated content like link posting. When analyzing this issue you can't get away from considering what the platform is a platform for. If it's a platform for UGC, the general rule is that the sharing of the content is a service provided to users at no cost. The vast majority of users receive no monetary payment from these platforms. Some of them rev share if they advertise on content, but that's about as far as it goes. Facebook should rev share on any revenue from advertisements they place on news content ($0).

Barrin92 6y ago
>If it's a platform for UGC, the general rule is that the sharing of the content is a service provided to users at no cost. The vast majority of users receive no monetary payment from these platforms That is true (although Youtube actually does pay creators reasonably well), but I think you can make the case that they ought to, and that I think is what the central disagreement is about. Facebook/Google and so on basically function as distributors. In the olden days publishers had integrated distribution, which is why they basically owned the market. Now tech firms have basically seized control of distribution, and because they compete for the same revenue source as the publishers (ads) the conflict is very apparent. But I think the issue is general. User generated content isn't paid for because the marginal value added is so low per user, and users have no opportunity to bargain, and property rights for user content are non-existent. Just imagine if there was a sort of data-stewardship, and users could easily collectively bargain for data they submit to facebook, quickly move it, and this was enabled across all regions. I think Google and Facebook would have to very quickly part with some of their economic rents.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  That is true (although Youtube actually does pay creators reasonably well), They pay a tiny, tiny fraction of creators that create most of the economic value. But by count the vast majority of uploaders do not get paid anything, because they produce nothing of economic value, or maybe even negative value. They also have no BATNA (no other site willing to pay them more for the worthless content they generate). I say this as an occasional uploader to YouTube of videos that get in the low thousands of views. My content likely has negative value to YouTube, but they host it because low friction is part of how they attract creators who someday grow big. but I think you can make the case that they ought to . . . You're welcome to. Just imagine if ... users could easily collectively bargain ... If they could, we'd live in a different world. I don't know what to take away from that. It's not the world we live in. Everyone has different standards for "ought," but this argument doesn't meet mine.

Barrin92 6y ago

>If it's a platform for UGC, the general rule is that the sharing of the content is a service provided to users at no cost. The vast majority of users receive no monetary payment from these platforms That is true (although Youtube actually does pay creators reasonably well), but I think you can make the case that they ought to, and that I think is what the central disagreement is about. Facebook/Google and so on basically function as distributors. In the olden days publishers had integrated distribution, which is why they basically owned the market. Now tech firms have basically seized control of distribution, and because they compete for the same revenue source as the publishers (ads) the conflict is very apparent. But I think the issue is general. User generated content isn't paid for because the marginal value added is so low per user, and users have no opportunity to bargain, and property rights for user content are non-existent. Just imagine if there was a sort of data-stewardship, and users could easily collectively bargain for data they submit to facebook, quickly move it, and this was enabled across all regions. I think Google and Facebook would have to very quickly part with some of their economic rents.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
That is true (although Youtube actually does pay creators reasonably well), They pay a tiny, tiny fraction of creators that create most of the economic value. But by count the vast majority of uploaders do not get paid anything, because they produce nothing of economic value, or maybe even negative value. They also have no BATNA (no other site willing to pay them more for the worthless content they generate). I say this as an occasional uploader to YouTube of videos that get in the low thousands of views. My content likely has negative value to YouTube, but they host it because low friction is part of how they attract creators who someday grow big. but I think you can make the case that they ought to . . . You're welcome to. Just imagine if ... users could easily collectively bargain ... If they could, we'd live in a different world. I don't know what to take away from that. It's not the world we live in. Everyone has different standards for "ought," but this argument doesn't meet mine.