• ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 days ago

    How do you apply this to a platform like YouTube? I don’t even finish most of the videos I start watching there, and the ones I do, I’ll likely never watch again anyway. Subscribtion seems much more logical profit model to a company like that.

      • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 days ago

        He was discussing options where people oppose both ads and subscriptions as methods of payment for consumed media.

        IMO YouTube Premium is the only subscription that I will probably never cancel as not only does it pay more to content creators than ad revenue does (per individual viewing), it directly financially supports the hundred-odd creators I enjoy (large and small).

        If the cost is too high for you to justify, you can band together with friends to split the costs of a Family Plan and/or do as I do and VPN back to my home country where the cost is significantly less than it is where I live now!

    • pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      That’s fair. Nebula, Patreon, and Floatplane are the three “streaming” subscriptions I keep because much of the money goes straight to the creative involved.

    • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 days ago

      Free video sharing platforms are basically not viable as a business model. For a free and open internet to succeed, YouTube has to fail. At the moment, it only exists because Google subsidises it.

      The ideal way for video sharing to work is for large content creators to set up their own federated video hosting websites (or pay for someone else to do it for them) and potentially offer some small amount of free capacity for those who want to upload small, not-for-profit videos