This has come up constantly over the centuries:
It isn’t about evil corporate/fuedal/whatever interests ruining art. It is about having the time to make art. Ethan Chlebowski and Brian Lagerstrom semi-recently did a podcast where they talked about this. For a 20 minute recipe video you tend to have to iterate on the dish at least a dozen times (if not more). And that costs money and time.
Candelestine@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Art isn’t required to be inherently iterative. It usually is, but that’s a casual correlation. I think what you’re talking about sounds like professionalism, which is a different thing. It encourages consistency and quantity, but not necessarily excellence, as I think the world has demonstrated fairly well.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
Even something with no iteration at all takes time and money. Paint costs money. The time to sit down and write a first draft costs time.
Which, again, is where getting paid to create art comes into play. And peertube does not provide that. Which is especially bad in the case of video media as pretty much any youtuber will tell you: You are looking at at least a ten to one ratio of time spent creating/editing to any minute of footage. And that just goes up as you work on more complex works. A few of the “maker” youtubers are pretty open that they almost always have three or four active projects and a given 10-20 minute video might represent years of their lives.
Candelestine@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Certainly. Effort is important and a financial reward is certainly a strong incentive. These are advantages in youtubes favor. Moreover, the hosting cost is really where problems start to come in with peertube.
I suppose if you expected it to properly replace youtube, then I agree, it’s a poor idea. As something that exists independently with its own value, I think it’s fine though.
NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 6 months ago
I guess I just don’t see any advantages to it.
If the goal is just to host a few videos on your own site and eat the bandwidth costs: That is a solved problem with much lighter weight solutions.
If the goal is to host videos for other people? Well… think about why someone wouldn’t be able to use youtube or any of the fly by night “totally not just for revenge porn and gorn” (Liveleak sure was a thing) and what that means for liability.
At most I can see it useful for the really sketchy sites. Sort of like how most of the chud twitters are actually a mastodon instance under the hood.
JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You’re both right!
But I see a terrible paradox in the case of ads. The creator pays their bills with ads, but I have no intention of acting on those ads. Possibly the contrary, since I did not want to see the ad and I dislike being manipulated. So in my case the ad is making precisely zero money for the company who is paying the creator’s bill, as well as annoying me. Presumably I am not the only one. There is a paradox here that is hard to resolve.
Candelestine@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You can’t prevent the ad from manipulating you. It’s targeting your subconscious, your moods and feelings. They don’t give two shits what your forebrain thinks of them. They want vague associations that slip beneath memory, that pop out five years later.
They’re ubiquitous because they’re so effective though. Really is a pain in the ass.