4 ms·

>The implication of this article is that cat videos "should" get less than "real artists", for some subjective value of "real". I was just stating that cat vid

>The implication of this article is that cat videos "should" get less than "real artists", for some subjective value of "real". I was just stating that cat videos may get less per interaction then "real artists", the difference is the reach cat videos get that makes them earn so much. The problem of the global tech platforms disrupting the barrier of global reach is that it's funneled to very few platforms. That's not good, it's what makes the mentioned cat videos explode and earn more, because one choice of one algorithm was enough to do so. How is that "fair" in the sense that was a low effort endeavor that got picked up and boosted to reach millions of people? And then, like you mentioned, we're at the will of very few players and their decisions (political or not). >Art has a good few decades head-start in content creation, so why are they losing a content war to youtuber amateurs? Certainly there were other gatekeepers, but you never had single entities with so much reach. Distributors had to work with other distributors globally, no matter if it was for the film industry or music industry, no media alone company could reach more then a billion people and enforce their choices on everyone - which is what Youtube does in the end. You can say that chain of players is just inefficiency and cost overhead, which is true. But also it was truly diverse. By being diverse I'm not saying it was fairer, it was just diverse and the act of competing with such small players (in comparison to Google, or Amazon, that have unlimited money) was still up for grabs. > It's a similar question to "Why so little public funding for the arts?", and "Why do the Arts need so much funding?", and "Why isn't it the Arts job to find willing funders?". Well some of those guys actually put some effort into things, and the majority are not trying to game a algorithm, hopping on a trend, or looking for some sort of "art-market-fit" (jesus, imagine that), they do things for the sake of expressing themselves - and this shouldn't be ruled by capitalism, much less ruled by Google or Facebook.

Chris2048 5y ago
I agree, the tech platforms threaten to form a monopoly, which is why I noted it but decided not to address that fact. It may become a bigger problem, it may not - I guess we'll see what competition arises. Arguably, the more people see the threat, and start to care about it; The more they'll do about it, and competition will arise. > How is that "fair" in the sense that was a low effort endeavour that got picked up and boosted to reach millions of people This seems very similar to the radio/record-label issue. Whatever subpar trash band band Simon Cowell picks up gets boosted, whatever the radio channels choose to air over gate-keeped frequencies. The web is different in that such a monopoly is harder to maintain, not easier. We are still in the early days of internet media. If cat videos are truly "low effort", then competition should be high, so expect the boost to be short lived as the competition starts to kick in. I'm actually somewhat surprised any particular cat video is able to make a lot of money still. > which is what Youtube does in the end YouTube won't necessarily be only game in town for long, I hope. Google rose to fame on the basis of a better search algorithm. Maybe the future of video streaming is a competitor with a better video recommendation algo? > the majority are not trying to game a algorithm The algo changes so much that this isn't necessarily a winning strategy. > looking for some sort of "art-market-fit" (jesus, imagine that), they do things for the sake of expressing themselves If you aren't ruled by capitalism, don't expect to earn as much capital. What else do you want: those ignoring the needs/signals of the market, get equally rewarded by the market? To quote: "I write.. erotic novels. For children." "What.." "They're wildly unpopular."

Chris2048 5y ago

I agree, the tech platforms threaten to form a monopoly, which is why I noted it but decided not to address that fact. It may become a bigger problem, it may not - I guess we'll see what competition arises. Arguably, the more people see the threat, and start to care about it; The more they'll do about it, and competition will arise. > How is that "fair" in the sense that was a low effort endeavour that got picked up and boosted to reach millions of people This seems very similar to the radio/record-label issue. Whatever subpar trash band band Simon Cowell picks up gets boosted, whatever the radio channels choose to air over gate-keeped frequencies. The web is different in that such a monopoly is harder to maintain, not easier. We are still in the early days of internet media. If cat videos are truly "low effort", then competition should be high, so expect the boost to be short lived as the competition starts to kick in. I'm actually somewhat surprised any particular cat video is able to make a lot of money still. > which is what Youtube does in the end YouTube won't necessarily be only game in town for long, I hope. Google rose to fame on the basis of a better search algorithm. Maybe the future of video streaming is a competitor with a better video recommendation algo? > the majority are not trying to game a algorithm The algo changes so much that this isn't necessarily a winning strategy. > looking for some sort of "art-market-fit" (jesus, imagine that), they do things for the sake of expressing themselves If you aren't ruled by capitalism, don't expect to earn as much capital. What else do you want: those ignoring the needs/signals of the market, get equally rewarded by the market? To quote: "I write.. erotic novels. For children." "What.." "They're wildly unpopular."