4 ms·

We will see how prepared you will be to pay, where each of creators you watch will be on different network and you will have to pay for each network $10/month,

by stiray 1y ago

We will see how prepared you will be to pay, where each of creators you watch will be on different network and you will have to pay for each network $10/month, while you watch 20 creators. Again, this is nothing new. It already happened with video streaming, where Youtube now is Netflix then.

scoofy 1y ago
This already happened with Dropout.tv when college humor left YouTube. Yes, it ain’t perfect. The alternative is the creator literally stop making videos. YouTube is already not serving ads for demonetized videos. People doing it for the love of filmmaking can already do it for free.
- stiray 1y ago
  No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads. And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary? Yes, I know. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
  - scoofy 1y ago
    How do creators get paid under your rubric? They already get 55% of revenues at YouTube which is basically the highest percentage in any creator industry. How do we pay creators under your rubric and allow them to be discovered?
    - stiray 1y ago
      Looks like it worked and it works, without any changes, while the number of views is keeping their earnings to small group that will not increase as there is not infinite number of time to watch the movies. And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children".
      - scoofy 1y ago
        >And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children". Classic consumer-only socialist. You have no model for production except business is bad. If you care about labor then you care about labor getting paid. So far you've demonstrated that you have no model of paying content creators. You would rather they go away then actually pay for their services. You pretend you should be able to get it for free. If you have no model of production, then you have no model.
        stiray 1y ago
        No, it is much simpler. Success of a company is not limited on constant growth of profit but rather of providing to workers and owners a normal life. And in our case, it is paid in current model (actually even in model with less ads). It doesn't need any growth of profit. Everything else is pure greed. Now the question opens, are you paying for videos or greed?
        scoofy 1y ago
        You have no model for how labor gets paid.
        stiray 1y ago
        Sure I do, by suckers watching ads, like it always was. The whole thing about Google is that they are not software company (as people like to falsely believe), they are advertising company, financing everything else from ads. Including search, youtube, android, gmail and all other side projects. And those side projects brings them data, to advertise more efficiently. Now, seeing a trend to monetize their side toys is just pure greed, they don't really need that. This is also the reason, why no one can compete with them. As competing with free products is impossible unless you have side financing. By the way, did you (and everyone else) maybe read this study? https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br... It is very eye opening.
  - lyu07282 1y ago
    "vote with your wallet" is like trickle down economics, it's like if only everyone used paper straws we could prevent climate catastrophy. Split up FANGM should be the bare minimum.
    - stiray 1y ago
      It is not, but discipline is needed instead consumerism. And every half intelligent marketing guy will make it harder than to just pay. Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws. Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now.
      - lyu07282 1y ago
        > Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws No they are the decipline you are talking about, the delusion is, if everyone used paper straws we would save the ecological destruction of the oceans. The structural problems of endless profit maximization machines can not be addressed by appealing to individual action. > Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now. That depends on the amount of pieces, don't you think?
        stiray 1y ago
        Ok, I wanted to avoid it, but since you didnt understand, paper straws are just straw men. They have absolutely nothing with voting with wallet, it is just some lame scenario, comparable at nothing and kicked instead of the real thing. Or said differently: plastic straws are only a minor part in ocean pollution, while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing. And yes, I agree it depends on number of pieces, but I don't put any trust into USA as state, even without Trump, being able to persecute billion $ corporation.
        lyu07282 1y ago
        > while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing That's what I'm getting at is wrong. The paper straws are an analogy, if everyone stopped driving cars and lived in the woods we could reduce carbon emissions significantly, therefore the reason we can't stop climate change is people not voting with their wallets. Everything is people not voting with their wallets, it applies to everything, that's why it applies to nothing.

by stiray 1y ago

scoofy 1y ago

This already happened with Dropout.tv when college humor left YouTube. Yes, it ain’t perfect. The alternative is the creator literally stop making videos. YouTube is already not serving ads for demonetized videos. People doing it for the love of filmmaking can already do it for free.

stiray 1y ago
No, the alternative is that you DONT pay. That you deliberately not do what is the easiest move(1) and on top of that even feel special for doing it. That you suffer a short time for better next. That you fight them with technical means. That you vote with your wallet, squeeze your teeth hard and show them you just wont pay and they will lose ad watcher if they show more ads. And now you will tell, that people are not disciplined enough for that, that majority wont pass the marshmallow(2) experiment? That some Mike Judge movie was actually documentary? Yes, I know. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby_trap , A common trick is to provide victims with a simple solution to a problem, for example, leaving only one door open in an otherwise secure building, luring them straight toward the firing mechanism 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experimen...
- scoofy 1y ago
  How do creators get paid under your rubric? They already get 55% of revenues at YouTube which is basically the highest percentage in any creator industry. How do we pay creators under your rubric and allow them to be discovered?
  - stiray 1y ago
    Looks like it worked and it works, without any changes, while the number of views is keeping their earnings to small group that will not increase as there is not infinite number of time to watch the movies. And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children".
    - scoofy 1y ago
      >And dont "creators" me. It is about google earning more money for their stockholders and managment collecting their rewards, not about "think of the children". Classic consumer-only socialist. You have no model for production except business is bad. If you care about labor then you care about labor getting paid. So far you've demonstrated that you have no model of paying content creators. You would rather they go away then actually pay for their services. You pretend you should be able to get it for free. If you have no model of production, then you have no model.
      - stiray 1y ago
        No, it is much simpler. Success of a company is not limited on constant growth of profit but rather of providing to workers and owners a normal life. And in our case, it is paid in current model (actually even in model with less ads). It doesn't need any growth of profit. Everything else is pure greed. Now the question opens, are you paying for videos or greed?
        scoofy 1y ago
        You have no model for how labor gets paid.
        stiray 1y ago
        Sure I do, by suckers watching ads, like it always was. The whole thing about Google is that they are not software company (as people like to falsely believe), they are advertising company, financing everything else from ads. Including search, youtube, android, gmail and all other side projects. And those side projects brings them data, to advertise more efficiently. Now, seeing a trend to monetize their side toys is just pure greed, they don't really need that. This is also the reason, why no one can compete with them. As competing with free products is impossible unless you have side financing. By the way, did you (and everyone else) maybe read this study? https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br... It is very eye opening.
- lyu07282 1y ago
  "vote with your wallet" is like trickle down economics, it's like if only everyone used paper straws we could prevent climate catastrophy. Split up FANGM should be the bare minimum.
  - stiray 1y ago
    It is not, but discipline is needed instead consumerism. And every half intelligent marketing guy will make it harder than to just pay. Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws. Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now.
    - lyu07282 1y ago
      > Paper straws you mentioned are just paper straws No they are the decipline you are talking about, the delusion is, if everyone used paper straws we would save the ecological destruction of the oceans. The structural problems of endless profit maximization machines can not be addressed by appealing to individual action. > Splitting should happen 10 years ago. I doubt it will have any special impact now. That depends on the amount of pieces, don't you think?
      - stiray 1y ago
        Ok, I wanted to avoid it, but since you didnt understand, paper straws are just straw men. They have absolutely nothing with voting with wallet, it is just some lame scenario, comparable at nothing and kicked instead of the real thing. Or said differently: plastic straws are only a minor part in ocean pollution, while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing. And yes, I agree it depends on number of pieces, but I don't put any trust into USA as state, even without Trump, being able to persecute billion $ corporation.
        lyu07282 1y ago
        > while people not voting with their wallet is the main reason for all corporate shenanigans we are experiencing That's what I'm getting at is wrong. The paper straws are an analogy, if everyone stopped driving cars and lived in the woods we could reduce carbon emissions significantly, therefore the reason we can't stop climate change is people not voting with their wallets. Everything is people not voting with their wallets, it applies to everything, that's why it applies to nothing.