3 ms·

If you provide less monetisation for content creators, you end up with less content too. This is not as simple as you think…

by yunohn 4y ago

piaste 4y ago
You could reward the type of monetization that is correlated to high-quality content and penalize the type that is associated with spam. Site offers extra paid content or services, or takes donations? Rank up. Ads? Neutral or rank down based on type of ads. Affiliate links? Rank way down.
tazard 4y ago
Less content is fine when the issue is too much junk content. Content would then be created by enthusiasts instead of businesses
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  > enthusiasts instead of businesses Those are more and more the same person - especially when it comes to online ventures.
Loic 4y ago
You end up with less trash/monetization content and more content from passionate people writing about what they love/like/do for the joy of sharing. But this does not sustain the chocolate factory.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
We can't even answer out fucking phones because of these people and an ad blocker is pretty much a requirement to make the web even remotely usable. They're already pushing out content to replace it with more fucking ads! There is legitimately nothing good about them. At all.
nottorp 4y ago
> If you provide less monetisation for content creators But I don't want to "consume content", I want to "get information". Most "content creators" don't provide any info. Or at best there is some info there but you have to watch an hour worth of video for the 20 useful seconds.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
I don't want "content", some generic attention grabbing placeholder around which they spam ads. I don't want some professionally made lowest common denominator product designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. I want creations with heart and soul. I want to read the opinions and writings of real human beings, not corporate PR articles with cleverly disguised pitches at the end. People who don't have enough intrinsic motivation to create regardless of financial reward probably aren't producing anything of value. That basically excludes every for profit website out there that would be "killed" by less monetization. Killing them off is a good thing.
- trinsic2 4y ago
  Agreed. If content creators are more interested in getting something back (money) then they are creating something of value to society and disseminating it in a simple and clean way then I'm forced to think twice about their motives. If you put the cart (making money) before the horse (creating value) then you are not really a productive member of society. Takers are like irresponsible children, they take without any awareness of the ramifications their behavior has on society. This kind of attitude is similar to colonialism, an attitude representative of most of commercial enterprises today. Givers give value knowing that when they give, they receive, without any need to unnaturally focus on the end result.

If you provide less monetisation for content creators, you end up with less content too. This is not as simple as you think…

by yunohn 4y ago

If you provide less monetisation for content creators, you end up with less content too. This is not as simple as you think…

piaste 4y ago

You could reward the type of monetization that is correlated to high-quality content and penalize the type that is associated with spam. Site offers extra paid content or services, or takes donations? Rank up. Ads? Neutral or rank down based on type of ads. Affiliate links? Rank way down.

tazard 4y ago

Less content is fine when the issue is too much junk content. Content would then be created by enthusiasts instead of businesses

carlosjobim 4y ago
> enthusiasts instead of businesses Those are more and more the same person - especially when it comes to online ventures.

Loic 4y ago

You end up with less trash/monetization content and more content from passionate people writing about what they love/like/do for the joy of sharing. But this does not sustain the chocolate factory.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

We can't even answer out fucking phones because of these people and an ad blocker is pretty much a requirement to make the web even remotely usable. They're already pushing out content to replace it with more fucking ads! There is legitimately nothing good about them. At all.

nottorp 4y ago

> If you provide less monetisation for content creators But I don't want to "consume content", I want to "get information". Most "content creators" don't provide any info. Or at best there is some info there but you have to watch an hour worth of video for the 20 useful seconds.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

I don't want "content", some generic attention grabbing placeholder around which they spam ads. I don't want some professionally made lowest common denominator product designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. I want creations with heart and soul. I want to read the opinions and writings of real human beings, not corporate PR articles with cleverly disguised pitches at the end. People who don't have enough intrinsic motivation to create regardless of financial reward probably aren't producing anything of value. That basically excludes every for profit website out there that would be "killed" by less monetization. Killing them off is a good thing.

trinsic2 4y ago
Agreed. If content creators are more interested in getting something back (money) then they are creating something of value to society and disseminating it in a simple and clean way then I'm forced to think twice about their motives. If you put the cart (making money) before the horse (creating value) then you are not really a productive member of society. Takers are like irresponsible children, they take without any awareness of the ramifications their behavior has on society. This kind of attitude is similar to colonialism, an attitude representative of most of commercial enterprises today. Givers give value knowing that when they give, they receive, without any need to unnaturally focus on the end result.