4 ms·

Except that it's not about profits, it's about culture and quality of life. And pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else reliably destroys both. It'

Except that it's not about profits, it's about culture and quality of life. And pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else reliably destroys both. It's also about closing one of the few paths that the poor can use to stop being poor.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Creating video content for others to consume is one of the least likely to succeed avenues for a poor person to stop being poor, even if YouTube handed over every cent of advertising revenue to the video’s creators.
- chii 6y ago
  reading between the lines, it seems like the OP's idea is basically a form of UBI that allows creatives to engage in content creation regardless of the market-fit and commercial viability of the content.
  - MaximumYComb 6y ago
    While I like the principal of a UBI, people not living in poverty, it strikes me that OP's reasoning is one of the reasons why I see issues with a UBI. Who is going to want to work a factory/service job when you can live comfortably pumping out low quality videos that average 10 views? Maybe it would drive income equality and better remuneration for those roles. Maybe we'd simply lose a lot of productivity. Who knows?
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      That’s the point of UBI. Currently, the wages for those roles are low because they were born to poorer parents. But if given the opportunity not to, then the wages for those roles would go up so that there aren’t so low simply because people lost the ovarian lottery.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    no, more like state-subsidised highbrow-culture-focused TV channel, which will have to be heavily curated and hard to get into, but which will pay reasonable money to the lucky ones who managed to get commissioned UBI would provide peanuts for everyone and devalue the content even more. Everybody and the fleas on the backs of their dogs will be streaming and influencing.
luckylion 6y ago
> And pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else reliably destroys both. So who decides which artists are about "culture and quality of life" and should be paid to do whatever they like doing? You? Some committee? The population? Because right now it's the population. You might not agree with the choices they make, but that's a different issue.
dbbk 6y ago
I'm not sure I'm following how what you're saying is applicable to people making money making videos on YouTube?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

lotsofpulp 6y ago

Creating video content for others to consume is one of the least likely to succeed avenues for a poor person to stop being poor, even if YouTube handed over every cent of advertising revenue to the video’s creators.

chii 6y ago
reading between the lines, it seems like the OP's idea is basically a form of UBI that allows creatives to engage in content creation regardless of the market-fit and commercial viability of the content.
- MaximumYComb 6y ago
  While I like the principal of a UBI, people not living in poverty, it strikes me that OP's reasoning is one of the reasons why I see issues with a UBI. Who is going to want to work a factory/service job when you can live comfortably pumping out low quality videos that average 10 views? Maybe it would drive income equality and better remuneration for those roles. Maybe we'd simply lose a lot of productivity. Who knows?
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That’s the point of UBI. Currently, the wages for those roles are low because they were born to poorer parents. But if given the opportunity not to, then the wages for those roles would go up so that there aren’t so low simply because people lost the ovarian lottery.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  no, more like state-subsidised highbrow-culture-focused TV channel, which will have to be heavily curated and hard to get into, but which will pay reasonable money to the lucky ones who managed to get commissioned UBI would provide peanuts for everyone and devalue the content even more. Everybody and the fleas on the backs of their dogs will be streaming and influencing.

luckylion 6y ago

> And pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else reliably destroys both. So who decides which artists are about "culture and quality of life" and should be paid to do whatever they like doing? You? Some committee? The population? Because right now it's the population. You might not agree with the choices they make, but that's a different issue.

dbbk 6y ago

I'm not sure I'm following how what you're saying is applicable to people making money making videos on YouTube?