3 ms·

Gosh I hope Youtube doesn't shoot it's unicorn in the face. With the number of adds that the youtubers themselves sell, it's just a bit too much. I'd be happy f

Gosh I hope Youtube doesn't shoot it's unicorn in the face. With the number of adds that the youtubers themselves sell, it's just a bit too much. I'd be happy for this if I knew it wasn't going to just be google raking in all the money to themselves but instead had some form of payment partnership with the creators that was fair and equitable. All I see happening here is more adds overall.

bagacrap 3y ago
Content creators receive approximately 55% of the revenue generated on their channels. What is fair and equitable to you? Bear in mind that the other 45% is not pure profit for YT as most of it pays for hosting, development etc.
- gonzo41 3y ago
  One way to frame that is a 45% flat tax on the revenue that creators create for google. Time for some progressive taxation maybe? They could make it a tiered system so the low-end views pay more for creators. Ie, 90% to channels for the first 50K views, then progressive steps down to 55% share for the higher numbers.
  - bagacrap 3y ago
    Progressive taxation makes sense when you're talking about actual tax, but why does it make sense for content creators? If anything, less popular creators cost Google more, because one 10GB video with 1,000,000 views is cheaper to host and serve than ten 10GB videos each with 100,000 views. Anyway, I think we can all agree that both content and platform are necessary here, and letting content creators take home over half the revenue seems, I dunno, at least within the realm of fairness? Seems to be working pretty well for Mr Beast.
    - squeaky-clean 3y ago
      I occasionally get recommendations for videos of like 6 hour gameplay stream VODs with under 20 views. When I look at their channel they upload almost daily, 4-6 hours of them just silently playing a video game. I can't imagine how much it costs them to host one channel with hundreds or thousands of hours of video and about 10k views across the entirety of the channel history.

bagacrap 3y ago

Content creators receive approximately 55% of the revenue generated on their channels. What is fair and equitable to you? Bear in mind that the other 45% is not pure profit for YT as most of it pays for hosting, development etc.

gonzo41 3y ago
One way to frame that is a 45% flat tax on the revenue that creators create for google. Time for some progressive taxation maybe? They could make it a tiered system so the low-end views pay more for creators. Ie, 90% to channels for the first 50K views, then progressive steps down to 55% share for the higher numbers.
- bagacrap 3y ago
  Progressive taxation makes sense when you're talking about actual tax, but why does it make sense for content creators? If anything, less popular creators cost Google more, because one 10GB video with 1,000,000 views is cheaper to host and serve than ten 10GB videos each with 100,000 views. Anyway, I think we can all agree that both content and platform are necessary here, and letting content creators take home over half the revenue seems, I dunno, at least within the realm of fairness? Seems to be working pretty well for Mr Beast.
  - squeaky-clean 3y ago
    I occasionally get recommendations for videos of like 6 hour gameplay stream VODs with under 20 views. When I look at their channel they upload almost daily, 4-6 hours of them just silently playing a video game. I can't imagine how much it costs them to host one channel with hundreds or thousands of hours of video and about 10k views across the entirety of the channel history.