4 ms·

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 ho

by 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
    - Jenk 3y ago
      The expectation (that every singke viewer is obliged) is the recent fad, not the concept of donations. Are you deliberately obtuse or just incapable of distinguishing the two? Not irrelevant nor a stawman, but does show the fault in your argument. Somewhat ironic of you to accuse that given the above. Oh well.
      - soulofmischief 3y ago
        When at any point have I expressed that every single viewer is obliged to pay for the media they consume? I have not, and that is another straw man. I only pointed out that the ethics are much more nuanced than you are willing to accept. At this point you are being disingenuous as well as devolving into insults, so I will end this discussion here. Please use good faith when engaging in discussions on this platform.
        Jenk 3y ago
        > You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations Forming an argument with the unfounded pretense that everyone is obliged to donate is somehow not claiming everyone is obliged to donate. Yet somehow I'm the disingenious one.

by Jenk 3y ago

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
  - Jenk 3y ago
    The expectation (that every singke viewer is obliged) is the recent fad, not the concept of donations. Are you deliberately obtuse or just incapable of distinguishing the two? Not irrelevant nor a stawman, but does show the fault in your argument. Somewhat ironic of you to accuse that given the above. Oh well.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      When at any point have I expressed that every single viewer is obliged to pay for the media they consume? I have not, and that is another straw man. I only pointed out that the ethics are much more nuanced than you are willing to accept. At this point you are being disingenuous as well as devolving into insults, so I will end this discussion here. Please use good faith when engaging in discussions on this platform.
      - Jenk 3y ago
        > You don't get to resolve yourself of ethical obligations Forming an argument with the unfounded pretense that everyone is obliged to donate is somehow not claiming everyone is obliged to donate. Yet somehow I'm the disingenious one.