3 ms·

Two things can be true at once. Youtube is a platform that needs to make money to exist, and it can also help support creators at the same time. No one claimed

Two things can be true at once. Youtube is a platform that needs to make money to exist, and it can also help support creators at the same time. No one claimed it was a charity for creators. They are perfectly justified in making money off of any video on their platform. It's honestly astonishing to me that you think it's acceptable for a creator to be able to rake in thousands from their video, hosted entirely for free, while also blocking Youtube from making a single penny from the video to pay for the cost of operation.

soraminazuki 5y ago
> you think it's acceptable for a creator to be able to rake in thousands from their video, hosted entirely for free, while also blocking Youtube from making a single penny Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote. Second, if anyone is operating at a loss, it’s the small creators. YouTube, operated by one of richest company on this planet, is the one profiting both directly and indirectly from those creators’ work. I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time.
- ehsankia 5y ago
  > Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote. Then please explain because either you agree that Youtube should be allowed to override the "no ads" checkbox for creators that run in-video ads, or you disagree with it. I don't really see a middle ground here. > I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time. It's simple; as with literally everything else Google does, scale. A few pennies, multiplied by millions of small creators, adds up very quickly. But if they had to setup Creator deals with each of those millions of creators with 1-2 videos, then the economics would simply not work out. It's the same reason they have piss poor customer support on their free products. Those products only work because they have billions of users, but providing customer support to that many people doesn't work financially.

soraminazuki 5y ago

> you think it's acceptable for a creator to be able to rake in thousands from their video, hosted entirely for free, while also blocking Youtube from making a single penny Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote. Second, if anyone is operating at a loss, it’s the small creators. YouTube, operated by one of richest company on this planet, is the one profiting both directly and indirectly from those creators’ work. I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time.

ehsankia 5y ago
> Please don’t dictate what I think. That’s not at all what I actually wrote. Then please explain because either you agree that Youtube should be allowed to override the "no ads" checkbox for creators that run in-video ads, or you disagree with it. I don't really see a middle ground here. > I also can’t understand how anyone can claim small creators “only makes a few pennies” while “raking in thousands” at the same time. It's simple; as with literally everything else Google does, scale. A few pennies, multiplied by millions of small creators, adds up very quickly. But if they had to setup Creator deals with each of those millions of creators with 1-2 videos, then the economics would simply not work out. It's the same reason they have piss poor customer support on their free products. Those products only work because they have billions of users, but providing customer support to that many people doesn't work financially.