5 ms·

None. They put their content out on a platform that does not require my contribution. YouTube was, and is, never about "compensating content creators" and I am

by Jenk 3y ago

None. They put their content out on a platform that does not require my contribution. YouTube was, and is, never about "compensating content creators" and I am under no obligation to do so, but they get paid anyway. Some get paid to add a segment from a sponsor, I choose to automatically skip that segment, but they still got paid for putting it in anyway. Would I watch it if they were behind a subscription fee? No.

2Gkashmiri 3y ago
yeah. my understanding is this. netflix/amazon prime are PAID only services. either you pay and get access or you do not pay and dont get access. I am FINE with this. i have never paid for either and i do not plan to which means i cannot consume this media, again, fine by me. when you put something on public internet, i am under no obligation to "compensate" anyone. put a paywall and prevent me from accessing your "service" like netflix.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
soulofmischief 3y ago
This argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. YouTube employs an ad model to pay creators, and tools like NewPipe and ad blockers (which I myself use, for good reason) circumvent this process. To not supplement it with alternative is to disrespect the time and energy required to make a video. Some content is relatively cheap to produce, be it vlog format or whatever. And some creators don't care about compensation because they have existing revenue sources. But many creators do this full-time and depend on generating an income stream from their hard work. The rule of thumb is an hour of work per minute of video for many creators. It is a matter of ethical consumption, which yes, you are not obligated to adhere to. But you should consider your consumption habits and review whether you are being fair to the people who work hard to inform or entertain you.
- Jenk 3y ago
  YouTube pays contributors a tiny fraction of their ad revenue in order to make more ad revenue. Sponsors pay them to include their products. So yes, it does hold up to scrutiny. YouTube and sponsors are paying them. I am not obligated, ethically or otherwise, to watch adverts.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    That makes zero sense. Most creators don't get significant sponsorship money. And they don't get paid for ads that aren't seen. You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations simply by saying you don't have them. Just be honest with yourself in that you like to exploit the time and energy of creators for your own entertainment without compensating them in some form. That's fine. But the ethics of the situation are much more nuanced than you choose to believe.
    - Jenk 3y ago
      It makes all the sense. There is no subscription fee. There is no premise nor expectation of payment by the viewer. They get paid as a consequence of people viewing, ahead of time by sponsors, or as a payment in lieu by ad monetisation - or if lucky/good enough voluntary donations. Keyword voluntary. This expectation of donorship is a recent fad that is just banal and asinine at the same time. By extension do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised because they have incurred the expense to buy the ad space and/or sponsorship?
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        > This expectation of donorship is a recent fad Actually, patronage was the default form of compensation for the arts during most of human history. You should question your world view. > do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised Irrelevant to the conversation, let's dispense with straw man arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage

by Jenk 3y ago

2Gkashmiri 3y ago

yeah. my understanding is this. netflix/amazon prime are PAID only services. either you pay and get access or you do not pay and dont get access. I am FINE with this. i have never paid for either and i do not plan to which means i cannot consume this media, again, fine by me. when you put something on public internet, i am under no obligation to "compensate" anyone. put a paywall and prevent me from accessing your "service" like netflix.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

soulofmischief 3y ago

This argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. YouTube employs an ad model to pay creators, and tools like NewPipe and ad blockers (which I myself use, for good reason) circumvent this process. To not supplement it with alternative is to disrespect the time and energy required to make a video. Some content is relatively cheap to produce, be it vlog format or whatever. And some creators don't care about compensation because they have existing revenue sources. But many creators do this full-time and depend on generating an income stream from their hard work. The rule of thumb is an hour of work per minute of video for many creators. It is a matter of ethical consumption, which yes, you are not obligated to adhere to. But you should consider your consumption habits and review whether you are being fair to the people who work hard to inform or entertain you.

Jenk 3y ago
YouTube pays contributors a tiny fraction of their ad revenue in order to make more ad revenue. Sponsors pay them to include their products. So yes, it does hold up to scrutiny. YouTube and sponsors are paying them. I am not obligated, ethically or otherwise, to watch adverts.
- soulofmischief 3y ago
  That makes zero sense. Most creators don't get significant sponsorship money. And they don't get paid for ads that aren't seen. You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations simply by saying you don't have them. Just be honest with yourself in that you like to exploit the time and energy of creators for your own entertainment without compensating them in some form. That's fine. But the ethics of the situation are much more nuanced than you choose to believe.
  - Jenk 3y ago
    It makes all the sense. There is no subscription fee. There is no premise nor expectation of payment by the viewer. They get paid as a consequence of people viewing, ahead of time by sponsors, or as a payment in lieu by ad monetisation - or if lucky/good enough voluntary donations. Keyword voluntary. This expectation of donorship is a recent fad that is just banal and asinine at the same time. By extension do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised because they have incurred the expense to buy the ad space and/or sponsorship?
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      > This expectation of donorship is a recent fad Actually, patronage was the default form of compensation for the arts during most of human history. You should question your world view. > do you feel obliged to buy the products being advertised Irrelevant to the conversation, let's dispense with straw man arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage