Youtube by itself produces almost no content. All content comes from content creators on the platform, which are getting severely underpaid by Youtube. If Youtube actually paid them their fair share, this argument would be somewhat valid.
So then you’re unwilling to pay for the content
I mean, we can’t act surprised that YouTube needs to somehow afford the infrastructure to serve content? Adblockers caught on & youtube cracked down.
More technical solutions will be created in response, and those wi be picked up by a small majority causing the cycle to start over once more.
Killerqu00@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 11 months ago
I disagree, i think they’re getting a fair cut? A channel as large as LTT has stated that YouTube ads make up nearly 30% of their revenue.
30% isn’t a ton, but when you consider that they can add brand deals on top of that (which they get 100% of). Additionally, when you look at the rev split it’s actually the creator getting 55% (45% in the case of shorts). Bigger channels probably get better deals too, as is the case with Twitch as well.
IMO this all seems fair, puts a heavy reliance on Google which is a just criticism however to ignore the costs of storing immense amounts of data (500hrs of video uploaded/minute), making it available, and the infrastructure associated (bandwidth, global cdn, etc) is not
KepBen@lemmy.world 11 months ago
google “outlier”
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 11 months ago
Did you read the rest?
Also, yes it’s an outlier but the only example i have on hand of a YouTuber sharing their revenue streams so
rambaroo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Only big creates will get brand deals, that’s the problem with you making assumptions based on LTT. And that’s why I think people are enormous hypocrites for blocking sponsorships on smaller channels. Until we live in a socialist utopia dealing with a 30 second ad isn’t that fucking much to ask to compensate someone you just used for entertainment.
CybranM@feddit.nu 11 months ago
You’re getting unfairly downvoted. I agree with the negative sentiment around Google but the only semi-alternative is nebula but they obviously don’t have the same amount of content. It’s not reasonable to expect YouTube to operate for free
jivandabeast@lemmy.browntown.dev 11 months ago
Thank you, the unfortunate truth is that we’re a community of people who just left a platform for their insatiable greed so its to be expected that when you say that companies should be able to make money within reason people get tight about it
rambaroo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
The other problem is people treating small/medium content creators like they’re some corporate entity fucking people over when they’re not. The entitlement and sheer hypocrisy on this site is incredible to see.
FOSS has created this childish expectation that other people should spend their time creating shit for lemmy-type nerds for free, but that is not sustainable in a capitalist economy. Software only gets away with it because software devs make a comfortable living with enough free time to work on FOSS, or they actually get paid to work on it by some corp.
People applying the same principle to creatives disgust me. A lot of smaller channels are not rolling in money, they’re making enough for a decent living or some side cash. There’s a huge difference between that and some giant media corporation ripping people off for content. Blocking ads and sponsorships is immoral and downright criminal imo, and it disgusts me to see so many people trying to normalize stealing from other workers.
tabular@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Where was Google’s concern for paying for infrastructure in the past? Google choose to bleed money which made it harder for smaller competitors to compete and take a share of the users, and now Google wants to have their eat and eat it too. Too damn bad.
I am unwilling to pay for the content while Google is where the content is. Odysee seemed shady to me so I stopped using it. Floatplane is proprietary and I’m trying to kick the nasty habbit of using proprietary software, I don’t want to start using new ones.
shalafi@lemmy.world 11 months ago
YouTube has been in the red since day 1. Now Google wants their payback. OK. Seems fair. But I don’t have to participate.
Everybody acting like Google is taking away a basic human right, or somehow “taxing” them is getting exhausting.
Facebook is up to even more shenanigans, proposing to charge users to keep ads off the screen. Again, fine. I don’t have to use FB.
runblack@reddthat.com 11 months ago
Payback is fair? Even though these very digital megacorporations are just now facing antitrust lawsuits for very good reasons? The only argument for having to use these platforms as a content creator is reach. But if Google, Amazon, Meta, etc. only got their market-dominating positions by illegal means, nothing is fair about wanting payback.
I am paying money to people creating content for me directly, even for some YouTube channels. If I were to abide by Google’s rules, I’d have to pay double. For the infrastructure & the people actually producing the content. Sorry… Why would I? I will not pity a monopolist because of their lost profits as long as I can circumvent it somehow.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not fair, it’s literally illegal under antitrust law in almost every country in the world.
You can’t run a service as a loss leader until nearly all your competition is dead and then start charging more than customers are willing to pay (or showing more ads than customers are willing to watch).
I’m happy to pay for video content - but I won’t pay the prices YouTube is charging.
coffeewithalex@lemmy.world 11 months ago
It’s not fair to pay money for services to a company involved in unrelated lawsuits? Does the antitrust investigation negate the expenses associated with running the operation of serving you content?
Are all competitors dead? You can switch to watching TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, for random user generated content. You can go to nebula if you want YouTube style documentaries. You can go to any movie platform if you want to watch random stuff. They are all either in the red, backed by VC, waiting to do the same thing, or serving aggressive ads, or selling your data, or costing money.
How much people are willing to pay is irrelevant in the context of fairness. Fairness is about a company breaking even. Customer readiness is however relevant to business, and in this case I’m afraid that the evidence is against you - after countless similar complaints in the past, people haven’t left the platform, and people have signed up to pay.
Paying for services is normal. It’s unrealistic not to. It’s unproductive to pretend otherwise.
Elderos@lemmings.world 11 months ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
Gladaed@feddit.de 11 months ago
Then don’t watch the content. But in lieu of a open source, non profit, market dominating video platform thus means not watching videos.
Even if that open source platform existed it would require it to be more or equally profitable for creators to reach a point where people upload to both platforms.
tabular@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I’ll keep watching the content, thanks.
theneverfox@pawb.social 10 months ago
Floatplane is owned by a YouTuber more about capitalism than tech at this point
Look at nebula, the creator owned network (from what I’ve heard about it)