5 ms·
Perhaps, but this must not be falsely equated with a situation where every user must either tolerate ads or pay for content. The non-obvious distinction lies in
by mostlylurks 3y ago
Perhaps, but this must not be falsely equated with a situation where every user must either tolerate ads or pay for content. The non-obvious distinction lies in that it is actually quite feasible for a small subset of dedicated fans to support a creator through services like patreon, allowing at least the primary body of the creator's content to remain freely available without requiring it to be ad-ridden. It may even be beneficial in generating more fans than the creator would have generated if they'd simply paywalled their content.
- collaborative 3y agoWould Youtube make financial sense without a "free" tier that includes ads? Would people use it? Would creators on Youtube even be found? The few people donating money will never donate enough to sustain the platform that also serves non-donating users. And those same people that donate will never even find any platform that hasn't already become popular thanks to the free ad-supported tier. There's no way out. The griftnet is here to stay