3 ms·

> Its like paying a restaurant not to harass you and then going to it when you could just go to the restaurant next door without the protection fee. No, it's l

> Its like paying a restaurant not to harass you and then going to it when you could just go to the restaurant next door without the protection fee. No, it's like paying the restaurant for the damn food. YouTube hosting all the world's videos forever is not a god given right, nor is being able to watch content people create for free. I despise ads, absolutely despise them, but gladly pay YouTube the $15/mo to remove them because I know good content needs to be paid for one way or another. There's still a few channels that I like that put in ads during the videos and that's still annoying, but otherwise I never see an ad. And this is fucking fantastic! Imagine if the web as a whole adopted this. (I know there are efforts including Google's) If I could pay $10/mo to get rid of all ads (explicit and implicit) and have that go towards the creators that I consume content for, then we'd be in a much better place. (imagine if FB just got a cut of that for example, how that would change the dynamics)

zwkrt 6y ago
I disagree that it is like it is paying for the food. If I had youtube premium and my entire $10 went to only the creators of the videos I watched using some egalitarian algorithm, then I would be into it. However, it is actually more like Spotify where some portion of my $10 (lets say $7, even though it is probably lower) gets put into a large pool and then distributed among all content creators on the site along with everyone else's premium money. I have a patreon which I budget $20/mo to actually pay the creators that I care about. Don't kid yourself into thinking your YT premium money is going anywhere except unboxing videos and Minecraft screaming videos and the like.
- jefftk 6y ago
  I don't think Spotify is any different here: money goes to creators/artists in proportion to watch/listen time, no?
- nicpottier 6y ago
  Do you have any source on how they distribute payments? All I can find is this blurb which could be read lots of different ways (likely by design): "Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, most of the revenue will go to creators." I support some creators via Patreon as well, but honestly that's just more work for me as my interests change and some months I don't consume any of their content. I imagine the truth is that it is likely something Spotify-like or some variation thereof. I'm still ok with that and YouTube does make it explicit that the majority of my sub goes towards creators. FWIW I suspect there are some reasons that are subtle, bug valid, that Spotify for example distributes subscription fees the way it does, which I agree does seem kinda BS at first blush. edit: some anecdotal info here saying that creators are indeed paid (handsomly) based on views: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/9agg5f/how_does_youtube_premium_affect_ad_revenue_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/9agg5f/how_does_yo...

zwkrt 6y ago

I disagree that it is like it is paying for the food. If I had youtube premium and my entire $10 went to only the creators of the videos I watched using some egalitarian algorithm, then I would be into it. However, it is actually more like Spotify where some portion of my $10 (lets say $7, even though it is probably lower) gets put into a large pool and then distributed among all content creators on the site along with everyone else's premium money. I have a patreon which I budget $20/mo to actually pay the creators that I care about. Don't kid yourself into thinking your YT premium money is going anywhere except unboxing videos and Minecraft screaming videos and the like.

jefftk 6y ago
I don't think Spotify is any different here: money goes to creators/artists in proportion to watch/listen time, no?
nicpottier 6y ago
Do you have any source on how they distribute payments? All I can find is this blurb which could be read lots of different ways (likely by design): "Currently, new revenue from YouTube Premium membership fees is distributed to video creators based on how much members watch your content. As with our advertising business, most of the revenue will go to creators." I support some creators via Patreon as well, but honestly that's just more work for me as my interests change and some months I don't consume any of their content. I imagine the truth is that it is likely something Spotify-like or some variation thereof. I'm still ok with that and YouTube does make it explicit that the majority of my sub goes towards creators. FWIW I suspect there are some reasons that are subtle, bug valid, that Spotify for example distributes subscription fees the way it does, which I agree does seem kinda BS at first blush. edit: some anecdotal info here saying that creators are indeed paid (handsomly) based on views: https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/9agg5f/how_does_youtube_premium_affect_ad_revenue_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/youtube/comments/9agg5f/how_does_yo...