4 ms·

> It makes me wonder if a sort of "basic income for Internet creators" would work. Instead of individuals trying to optimize their content for maximum income, i

by jjmarr 3y ago

> It makes me wonder if a sort of "basic income for Internet creators" would work. Instead of individuals trying to optimize their content for maximum income, it would instead work like this: if the group determines that you make great content, you get a small stipend monthly. There are no other expectations or optimization requirements, merely that you continue making the content I think you invented Patreon.

keiferski 3y ago
Yeah, but Patreon is still beholden to the individual-market optimizer model. I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content. Maybe a collective Patreon-like "guild" would be a starting point.
- CactusOnFire 3y ago
  The politics of who does vs doesn't make the cut sounds difficult to manage. I think an individualist model makes sense, or barring that, a group Patreon (i.e. a music label instead of an individual band).
  - keiferski 3y ago
    It would be difficult to manage, but not impossible. Certainly if you have a strong organizational culture and know what your org values. Like universities, for example. At least in the past. Otherwise you’re just dependent on the popularity of the market, which I don’t think is a great thing all of the time. There are a lot of things I’d enjoy reading or writing that have zero monetary value and thus are strongly incentivized against existing.
    - greenavocado 3y ago
      You just discovered what a corporation is. Corporations have "boards" that decide what is "good" and can invest in those things to develop them and sell them or give them away with approval from this board. The corporation receives funding from customers and investors to keep going.
      - keiferski 3y ago
        I guess? But clearly this corporate model isn’t really being used to make the kind of content people wish existed.
        greenavocado 3y ago
        The main roadblock for content creators is the distribution channels. Content creators require attention. Attention is the hardest thing to obtain. TikTok broke through and stole lots of attention away from YouTube. Content creators aren't able to grow a massive following of their own because of the discoverability crisis on the Internet. Google and many other platforms are putting up high wall prisons (I refuse to called them "walled gardens") to hold on to user attention as tightly as possible.
        ponderings 3y ago
        What people wish is still aiming quite low. These "privileged" netzen who were able to shoot web for free because they had other sources of income could also be accused of knowing things. We now have [for example] content creators who build their own workshop and make an effort to figure out something interesting. This is different from people who already have a workshop where they do practical things. The later will teach you stuff that is applicable, useful and/or marketable. It is deeply baked into their soul.
- sharkjacobs 3y ago
  Either you're inventing reddit-but-each-upvote-is-worth-a-fraction-of-a-cent, or there is some sort of select professional board who is responsible for deciding what is "good content" on behalf of the public. Sort of like national public arts grants, or maybe public broadcasters like the BBC. Right? Or are you imagining some third model
  - sharkjacobs 3y ago
    the thing about "basic income" is that it's basic. It's unconditional. It's a an efficient way for a government to guarantee a minimum quality of life for its citizens. As soon as you tie it to producing "good content" or something, the whole thing becomes about meeting that criteria. Ad views are a gameable target. So are upvotes. So is board approval.
    - SoftTalker 3y ago
      Yep the whole thing would quickly devolve into arguments over what is good or whether some irrelevant personal idiosyncracy of the creator should prohibit him getting paid for his otherwise "good" content.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I’m imagining something like this: a rich guy who likes art takes a million dollars and makes an organization that funds people writing about art, paying them $1,000 a month. (Exact amounts don’t matter.) He sets up a list of values and rules that are broad enough to not be limiting and specific enough to get what he wants. He personally picks the first 100 people involved, and then all further decision making involves him + those 100 people + new entrants. The specific setup could be debated but the basic idea is just that the group funds things that match its values.
    - drekipus 3y ago
      This already happens, somewhat in richer circles. Frank Zappa has a quote about this very thing actually.
    - 3y ago
- stackskipton 3y ago
  There are groups you can fund on Patreon that have a bunch of creators under them. Second Wind which is spin off old Escapist staff is one. The issue with these groups if there is a popular person in them, they will generally leave the group and start their own thing because they can get more money. So you will still have issues where top tier creators want all money and don't want to "subsidize" smaller creators.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content This is a newspaper or think tank. It can be donor, ad or reader (i.e. paywall) supported.
- jjmarr 3y ago
  You can donate to non-profit museums or art galleries where you live, and they will use that money to fund artists. edit: or you can donate to a non-profit newspaper, or think tank, or any other type of institution that deals with this. I'm not trying to be condescending, but the question to be asked shouldn't be "why doesn't this exist". It should be "why aren't more people aware of and using this?"
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  That sounds like an artist's network. A lot of podcasts have networks, there are some webcomic networks, etc. The problem with networks, much like with insurance networks (but kind of backwards), is making sure that the superstars that hit it big and bring in a disproportionate amount of the money don't spin off into a solo career to keep more of the money themselves, while also not making them feel trapped and resentful in a contract jail.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I think that the content from the “old web” that people miss isn’t really superstar quality. It’s more like an extensive nerdy guide on a niche topic. So I wouldn’t anticipate this being a huge issue.
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content Why does this group need to be different from the general Youtube (insert any platform here) audience that votes with their views/likes/subscribes ? What am I missing?
  - keiferski 3y ago
    Because the YouTuber watcher votes for MrBeast, not for the niche intellectual content that populated the early web. The point is to decouple quality content creation from the ad-matrix and fund it in other ways.
person23 3y ago
[flagged]
- Solvency 3y ago
  [flagged]
chx 3y ago
Except Patreon banned a lot of Ukranian vloggers and did not ban Russian propaganda. For example, WarGonzo is still on it (just checked) and Ayder Muzhdabayev and Serhii Sternenko are not. Check https://youtu.be/91US4DNcBGw https://youtu.be/91US4DNcBGw as well. This made me delete my Patreon.

by jjmarr 3y ago

keiferski 3y ago

Yeah, but Patreon is still beholden to the individual-market optimizer model. I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content. Maybe a collective Patreon-like "guild" would be a starting point.

CactusOnFire 3y ago
The politics of who does vs doesn't make the cut sounds difficult to manage. I think an individualist model makes sense, or barring that, a group Patreon (i.e. a music label instead of an individual band).
- keiferski 3y ago
  It would be difficult to manage, but not impossible. Certainly if you have a strong organizational culture and know what your org values. Like universities, for example. At least in the past. Otherwise you’re just dependent on the popularity of the market, which I don’t think is a great thing all of the time. There are a lot of things I’d enjoy reading or writing that have zero monetary value and thus are strongly incentivized against existing.
  - greenavocado 3y ago
    You just discovered what a corporation is. Corporations have "boards" that decide what is "good" and can invest in those things to develop them and sell them or give them away with approval from this board. The corporation receives funding from customers and investors to keep going.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I guess? But clearly this corporate model isn’t really being used to make the kind of content people wish existed.
      - greenavocado 3y ago
        The main roadblock for content creators is the distribution channels. Content creators require attention. Attention is the hardest thing to obtain. TikTok broke through and stole lots of attention away from YouTube. Content creators aren't able to grow a massive following of their own because of the discoverability crisis on the Internet. Google and many other platforms are putting up high wall prisons (I refuse to called them "walled gardens") to hold on to user attention as tightly as possible.
      - ponderings 3y ago
        What people wish is still aiming quite low. These "privileged" netzen who were able to shoot web for free because they had other sources of income could also be accused of knowing things. We now have [for example] content creators who build their own workshop and make an effort to figure out something interesting. This is different from people who already have a workshop where they do practical things. The later will teach you stuff that is applicable, useful and/or marketable. It is deeply baked into their soul.
sharkjacobs 3y ago
Either you're inventing reddit-but-each-upvote-is-worth-a-fraction-of-a-cent, or there is some sort of select professional board who is responsible for deciding what is "good content" on behalf of the public. Sort of like national public arts grants, or maybe public broadcasters like the BBC. Right? Or are you imagining some third model
- sharkjacobs 3y ago
  the thing about "basic income" is that it's basic. It's unconditional. It's a an efficient way for a government to guarantee a minimum quality of life for its citizens. As soon as you tie it to producing "good content" or something, the whole thing becomes about meeting that criteria. Ad views are a gameable target. So are upvotes. So is board approval.
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Yep the whole thing would quickly devolve into arguments over what is good or whether some irrelevant personal idiosyncracy of the creator should prohibit him getting paid for his otherwise "good" content.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I’m imagining something like this: a rich guy who likes art takes a million dollars and makes an organization that funds people writing about art, paying them $1,000 a month. (Exact amounts don’t matter.) He sets up a list of values and rules that are broad enough to not be limiting and specific enough to get what he wants. He personally picks the first 100 people involved, and then all further decision making involves him + those 100 people + new entrants. The specific setup could be debated but the basic idea is just that the group funds things that match its values.
  - drekipus 3y ago
    This already happens, somewhat in richer circles. Frank Zappa has a quote about this very thing actually.
  - 3y ago
stackskipton 3y ago
There are groups you can fund on Patreon that have a bunch of creators under them. Second Wind which is spin off old Escapist staff is one. The issue with these groups if there is a popular person in them, they will generally leave the group and start their own thing because they can get more money. So you will still have issues where top tier creators want all money and don't want to "subsidize" smaller creators.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content This is a newspaper or think tank. It can be donor, ad or reader (i.e. paywall) supported.
jjmarr 3y ago
You can donate to non-profit museums or art galleries where you live, and they will use that money to fund artists. edit: or you can donate to a non-profit newspaper, or think tank, or any other type of institution that deals with this. I'm not trying to be condescending, but the question to be asked shouldn't be "why doesn't this exist". It should be "why aren't more people aware of and using this?"
BobaFloutist 3y ago
That sounds like an artist's network. A lot of podcasts have networks, there are some webcomic networks, etc. The problem with networks, much like with insurance networks (but kind of backwards), is making sure that the superstars that hit it big and bring in a disproportionate amount of the money don't spin off into a solo career to keep more of the money themselves, while also not making them feel trapped and resentful in a contract jail.
- keiferski 3y ago
  I think that the content from the “old web” that people miss isn’t really superstar quality. It’s more like an extensive nerdy guide on a niche topic. So I wouldn’t anticipate this being a huge issue.
antisthenes 3y ago
> I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content Why does this group need to be different from the general Youtube (insert any platform here) audience that votes with their views/likes/subscribes ? What am I missing?
- keiferski 3y ago
  Because the YouTuber watcher votes for MrBeast, not for the niche intellectual content that populated the early web. The point is to decouple quality content creation from the ad-matrix and fund it in other ways.

person23 3y ago

[flagged]

Solvency 3y ago
[flagged]

chx 3y ago

Except Patreon banned a lot of Ukranian vloggers and did not ban Russian propaganda. For example, WarGonzo is still on it (just checked) and Ayder Muzhdabayev and Serhii Sternenko are not. Check https://youtu.be/91US4DNcBGw https://youtu.be/91US4DNcBGw as well. This made me delete my Patreon.