3 ms·
If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
by baobun 1y ago
If enough people do it, monetizing on Youtube becomes untenable for most, driving creators to hopefully healthier platforms who might now stand a chance.
- hombre_fatal 1y agoSo if I don't like Visa and Mastercard, do I also get moral carte blanche to not pay anyone because hey I'm totally urging them to only use merchants that I prefer? Sounds like awfully convenient motivated reasoning.
- spaceribs 1y agoAre you asking what we should do about this situation? Split up any and all monopolies, and nationalize what should provide a common good such as payment networks and internet infrastructure.
- matwood 1y agoAs a Google shareholder, I would love for YT to be spun out.
- daniel-grigg 1y agoThat’s how the market works. You avoid paying extra taxes than required right? Even though that denies the government extra funding. The only difference being one has been decided as wrong and the other is fine.
- StackRanker3000 1y agoThis is a weird framing Yes, society has deemed that it’s fine to make use of the avenues that have been explicitly created to reduce your tax burden - that’s why they were created. Society is also relatively fine with using unintended loopholes for the same purpose (although it is a lot more controversial and criticized), because we don’t tend to punish people for breaking laws, rules and regulations that don’t exist. When we end up caring a lot about them, we plug the gaps The other person was talking about straight up not paying for goods and services that are sold at a given price, which is stealing. The more apt comparison would be to tax evasion (actually breaking the law), which is a crime, widely considered wrong and punished accordingly
- hombre_fatal 1y agoIt isn't how the market works, and you absolutely don't take this line of reasoning when paying someone rendering services to you which is why you instead tried to analogize it with taxes. You only use this argument for Youtube content creators because it's trivial to avoid payment and then backsplain it with unique moral justifications.
- m4rtink 1y agoArent Visa and Mastercard defacto global monopolies that have had many controversies in the oast or bowed to outside pressure, refusing to handle payments for many perfectly legal businesses ?
- Workaccount2 1y agomono, like in monopoly, means single. They would be a duopoly. Which they aren't anyway because there is also amex and discover. So maybe a quadopoly?
- baobun 1y agoOligopoly, typically.
- hombre_fatal 1y agoYes. And they get some of your money in almost every transaction. Does that mean you are morally justified to dine out for free now?
- beeflet 1y agoThe metaphor doesn't work because I can still pay in cash. A better metaphor would be choosing not to tip the waiter because you don't believe in the custom of tipping
- rbits 1y agoRelying solely on YouTube monetisation is already untenable for many channels. That's why they do sponsorships and Patreon