The only real attempt at monetisation that I’ve seen is https://beetoons.tv/, but they use their own crypto - making it like Odysee. Why is that?
Edit: Please, before you answer consider this monetisation doesn’t mean ads!
The only real attempt at monetisation that I’ve seen is https://beetoons.tv/, but they use their own crypto - making it like Odysee. Why is that?
Edit: Please, before you answer consider this monetisation doesn’t mean ads!
Why does it need monetisation? Why can’t we have a place online where we aren’t bombarded with adverts or having our data vacuumed to sell to advertisers?
I have no issues with sponsorship in videos or creators plugging their stores/Pateron/Kofi in content. What I mind is pre roll and shoehorned ads partway through content that have no respect for my audio settings or the flow of the content.
Because the number of people who are willing to put in the work and create quality content without any potential reward is too low to be relevant. Without a credible model for monetisation, content creators will always prefer to stay in the closed platforms. If we want the open web to be a real alternative for everyone and not just a fringe thing, we need to be able to attract everyone.
Maybe I am getting old, but I do remember the time where “ads” did not automatically imply “Surveillance Capitalism”. The problem is not the former, but the latter.
Easy for you to say, but how many creators do you know that can make a living exclusively off their Patreon? And of those that do, how many managed to get known without putting their content on a closed platform?
Maybe, but the number of dimwits willing to make sensationalist drivel to make a buck is staggering. Exhibit A, any Youtuber. I prefer not to have that incentive in the Fediverse.
Do you know that story about the pottery teacher that made an experiment by separating students into two groups, one was going to be graded by how many pieces they made (quantity), the other by their best piece (quality), and that in the end the group that worried about quantity ended up producing better work than the ones focused on quality?
It’s the same thing with the internet. You are familiar with Sturgeon’s Law, right? Instead of looking at the 90% of crap (quality), we should find always to churn out as much content as possible so that the non-crap 10% can be of a reasonable number.
I honestly do not care about the dimwits on YouTube, but it pains me that I can not convince someone like @geerlingguy@mastodon.social to leave YouTube to post his content on an open alternative, because that would be the same as asking to stop having the resources to keep doing the amazing work that he does.
So, in your pottery story only one in 10 mass produced pots would be better (by some fuzzy criteria) than those by somebody who actually pit their mind and creativity to it? Sounds wasteful AF, dude.
Similarly, a glance at that Geerling guy’s website tells me that he is already maintaining around twenty different social profiles. So I guess his Youtube ad revenue goes into supporting that promotional effort, as well as the amazing work I’ve never heard of.
I respect your efforts with Communick, even if I don’t agree with your examples. I’m just not interested in an internet that tries to center commercial revenue as a raison d’être. I’ll support people who would be doing what they do without that motivation.
I’m not arguing for “commercial revenue as a raison d’être”. I’m arguing that it’s a numbers game.
Even if 100% of the people here on this small, elitist, open web were “good” (which is not true), a web that is universal and only 10% “good” would be better.
Hosting costs money. “Monetization” doesn’t mean disruptive ads.
Hosting cost money, so an host can setup a patreon to make money to host his peertube instance.
Monetisation like YouTube-monetisation means ads everywhere because, monetisation on YouTube comes from publicity.
That’s a type of monetization.
OP didn’s ask about “YouTube-like monetization”.
Op wasn’t very specific on what monetisation he was talking about either.
What is your point exactly?
Why did you make crazy assumptions, then?
That you made crazy assumptions that were never in OP’s question in the first place.
1/ I just gave one example of monetisation that is working with peertube as it is now.
2/ And I explain briefly why most replies make the link with monetisation and ads.
I didn’t make any assumption in 1, I answer the question : monetisation on peertube is possible right now. In 2, I assume Op didn’t understand why people react often as if monetisation was equal to ads. But I didn’t assume Op was talking about that specifically, because if I was I wouldn’t have suggested an alternative monetisation system in 1 in the first place.
Lastly, you used the word crazy about me two sentences in a row, on a two sentences post. Chill.
The person who couldn’t let the simple and true statement “Hosting costs money. “Monetization” doesn’t mean disruptive ads.” stand is in no position to tell others to chill. Maybe just accept true statements next time.
Where did I say the statement was wrong ? Please elaborate.
I’ll repeat this again: monetisation does not mean ads. If you believe ads are the only way to monetise something, you have been lied to or are giving in to programming.
How do you think content creators survive?
Anti Commercial-AI license