3 ms·

>I'm mostly concerned with money going to the content creators. This doesn't really hold up when you gloss over his discussion of the broken YouTube compensati

>I'm mostly concerned with money going to the content creators. This doesn't really hold up when you gloss over his discussion of the broken YouTube compensation model. Even though it's not salient to your biases or original conjecture to bring up that YouTube's compensation system is harmful for most creators, it seems unproductive to put your head in the sand about the issue and keep claiming that you want to see money go to content creators you support.

wbobeirne 5y ago
You're right that I didn't approach that issue, and part of that is because I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it. I agree that the ad-supported revenue model is pretty busted, and YouTube is the primary beneficiary of that. But as far as I'm aware, the Premium subscription model is pretty beneficial to everyone. I don't know exact percentages, but I'm under the impression that the average Premium view nets more money to the creator than the average ad-supported view. I haven't personally seen any content creators explicitly dissuade people from paying for Premium. But like I said, I don't know specifics to strongly hold that view and publicly argue it. _That_ would be putting my head in the sand. I need to read up a bit more and see what content creators are saying about Premium. I was hoping that prompting this discussion would lead me to some more good info on that.
- DetroitThrow 5y ago
  >I didn't approach that issue To be clear, you went as far to omit it from your mostly dismissive response despite your contradictory view underlying your original assumptions, you didn't simply take a stance of uncertainty. > I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it >I don't know specifics to strongly hold that view and publicly argue it. You took a strong public stance on its negative externalities already and that the Premium model is actually a solution before knowing specifics about even how views are broken down into ad revenue, this doesn't hold up. You're putting your head in the sand about arguments that don't seem salient to your original conjecture. You seem to only want only additional info to disprove your biases - not prove them, and YouTube has an incentive to keep that information private. >I was hoping that prompting this discussion would lead me to some more good info on that. This doesn't hold up given the above points about misrepresenting your original strong public stances and providing no information as to why your biases are correct.
  - wbobeirne 5y ago
    I said "It feels heavy on negative externalities" in my original comment which is not a strong stance by any means, and have not said that Premium solves the creator payment model anywhere, only that it gives you the ad-free experience that Vanced gives you, while still continuing to pay content creators for viewing their content. Those are two separate discussions.
- kazinator 5y ago
  > Premium view nets more money to the creator than the average ad-supported view. How does that compare to just donating directly? > I haven't personally seen any content creators explicitly dissuade people from paying for Premium. If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation.
  - wbobeirne 5y ago
    > How does that compare to just donating directly? It's definitely less effective than monetizing creators directly, I think that's the best option when it's available, and you have the time, energy, and motivation to do it. But if I watch just 2 or 3 videos from somebody but don't seek to support them outside of the platform, I prefer that they get _something_ for the value provided rather than nothing. I'll admit that I'm a bit lazy and it's convenient to have YouTube directly transform my views into dollars for them. > If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation. I highly doubt that. Just search for videos about de-monetization or the dislike count removal, people make videos criticizing the YouTube platform all the time. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong if there's some special language around their paid subscription specifically.

wbobeirne 5y ago

You're right that I didn't approach that issue, and part of that is because I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it. I agree that the ad-supported revenue model is pretty busted, and YouTube is the primary beneficiary of that. But as far as I'm aware, the Premium subscription model is pretty beneficial to everyone. I don't know exact percentages, but I'm under the impression that the average Premium view nets more money to the creator than the average ad-supported view. I haven't personally seen any content creators explicitly dissuade people from paying for Premium. But like I said, I don't know specifics to strongly hold that view and publicly argue it. _That_ would be putting my head in the sand. I need to read up a bit more and see what content creators are saying about Premium. I was hoping that prompting this discussion would lead me to some more good info on that.

DetroitThrow 5y ago
>I didn't approach that issue To be clear, you went as far to omit it from your mostly dismissive response despite your contradictory view underlying your original assumptions, you didn't simply take a stance of uncertainty. > I have a bit more research I want to do before I take strong public stances on it >I don't know specifics to strongly hold that view and publicly argue it. You took a strong public stance on its negative externalities already and that the Premium model is actually a solution before knowing specifics about even how views are broken down into ad revenue, this doesn't hold up. You're putting your head in the sand about arguments that don't seem salient to your original conjecture. You seem to only want only additional info to disprove your biases - not prove them, and YouTube has an incentive to keep that information private. >I was hoping that prompting this discussion would lead me to some more good info on that. This doesn't hold up given the above points about misrepresenting your original strong public stances and providing no information as to why your biases are correct.
- wbobeirne 5y ago
  I said "It feels heavy on negative externalities" in my original comment which is not a strong stance by any means, and have not said that Premium solves the creator payment model anywhere, only that it gives you the ad-free experience that Vanced gives you, while still continuing to pay content creators for viewing their content. Those are two separate discussions.
kazinator 5y ago
> Premium view nets more money to the creator than the average ad-supported view. How does that compare to just donating directly? > I haven't personally seen any content creators explicitly dissuade people from paying for Premium. If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation.
- wbobeirne 5y ago
  > How does that compare to just donating directly? It's definitely less effective than monetizing creators directly, I think that's the best option when it's available, and you have the time, energy, and motivation to do it. But if I watch just 2 or 3 videos from somebody but don't seek to support them outside of the platform, I prefer that they get _something_ for the value provided rather than nothing. I'll admit that I'm a bit lazy and it's convenient to have YouTube directly transform my views into dollars for them. > If they were to do that anywhere in YouTube, you'd think that would be some kind of TOS violation. I highly doubt that. Just search for videos about de-monetization or the dislike count removal, people make videos criticizing the YouTube platform all the time. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong if there's some special language around their paid subscription specifically.