Comment by vitus
2 months ago
> The remaining YouTube channels would be concentrated around the ones that are of higher quality, rather than easy slop produced to push ads. Nobody would try to clone someone else's channel for money. They would only be produced by people who were passionate about that topic. There would be fewer channels by passionate people, but the percentage would be much higher, so it's not necessarily a worse situation overall.
I have some questions about your vision.
- How many content creators would no longer be able to make passion videos as their full-time job because they're no longer getting revenue-sharing from YouTube?
- Okay, some content creators also have Patreon etc. What's the incentive to post these videos publicly for free, as opposed to hoarding them behind their Patreon paywall?
- What's the incentive for YouTube to continue existing as a free-to-watch service? Or even at all? Take away the ad money, and I can't imagine that the remaining subscription revenue comes anywhere close to paying for the infrastructure.
The vast majority of Patreon contributions come from the YouTuber advertising it.
Who says we have to keep using YouTube for this vision? There's no reason why the government can't nationalize these services if they are so vital for a variety of commerce.
Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow users the ability to bring in their own advertising.
I'm not saying that we have to keep using YouTube for this vision, but GP stated that there would be fewer YouTube channels (but not none!). In that scenario, what incentives are there to provide a video-sharing platform that is a net negative to operate?
I don't think that nationalizing such a service makes much sense either. What motivation does a government have to operate a service for global benefit (as opposed to just its citizens)? Surely we shouldn't want a US YouTube, a French YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.
> Or at the very least regulate it as a utility and allow users the ability to bring in their own advertising.
Doesn't that run counter to the premise of banning advertising in the first place?
> Surely we shouldn't want a US YouTube, a French YouTube, a Japanese YouTube, etc.
Why not? What's so special about having all content on the same website? You can generally only consume videos in your own language or others you can understand. There's generally only a handful of countries that speak a certain language, and aggregators would likely appear.
If each country had their own localised platform, local culture would have a much greater chance to flourish.
I know plenty of teenagers who know more about US politics than their own country's, who barely know local artists, who know certain expressions in English but have no resources to convey a similar message in their native languages.
I wouldn't mind going back to a world a little more diverse, a little less homogeneous.
3 replies →
There was an Internet before advertising. There are still sites without advertising. Why?