That's bizarre. I watch a lot of great content on YouTube that's possible because those people get paid. I would rather like if YouTube paid them _more_ because the sponsors and patrons of the world prove that not all views are the same. Sadly, a lot of shit content gets lots and lots of views

▲

everforward 5 days ago | parent [-]

I dislike it because it exposes content creators to similar pressures as traditional TV. There's a lot of content that doesn't get made because that content would be unsponsorable or worse yet would make the creator in general unsponsorable. It's also created some strange and twisted linguistics to appease sponsors or YouTube's algorithm like "unalive" or "PDF file" (as a standin for pedophile).

I guess it's the way of the world, but the introduction of heavy monetization has definitely influenced the kind of content YouTube carries.

▲

whatevaa 5 days ago | parent [-]

You can make content without monetization in mind. But it's like giving your time away.

Content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made even if sponsorships didn't exist.

People want to get rewarded for they work, you know. Do you also want your plumber to work for free?

	▲	PeterisP 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'd probably be OK if all the content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made at all, and the people who work as content creators stopped doing so. There is an overabundance of new content, having 10x less content would be perfectly fine, and in pretty much every niche there are amateur enthusiasts who clearly (based on their amount of viewers) are giving their time away, and their content is in many ways preferable and "more real" than the professionals - so I'd be OK if all the professionals stop and these awkward amateur enthusiasts are all that remain. The same applies to web and blogs; the ability to monetize them by ads (and I do remember the "old web" before it was the case) increased the content but drowned out viewership for the true enthusiasts running things in their spare time, which IMHO were more valuable and I think that regime was better; again, losing 90% or 99% of the content wouldn't be bad in my mind, there still would be more than enough for anyone to ever "consume".
	▲	everforward 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> You can make content without monetization in mind. But it's like giving your time away. Sure, but then how is this any different from TV? Eg I’ve seen a few videos dramatically overblowing the certainty of life on Mars lately, presumably for views. If I wanted half truths based on lack of context, I could just flip on the news. > Content which doesn't get made without sponsorship wouldn't get made even if sponsorships didn't exist. Sponsorships raise the money invested into videos, which raises viewer expectations, suppressing the likelihood these videos would ever be seen. You basically need sponsors for your videos to go anywhere these days because people expect professional editing/lighting/etc. The “I watched a Premier tutorial and filmed on a cellphone” approach won’t cut it anymore. > People want to get rewarded for they work, you know. Do you also want your plumber to work for free? I don’t want it to be work, I would prefer it was done by hobbyists. There are tons of thriving hobby communities full of people only getting personal satisfaction.
	▲	stemlord 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>You can make content without monetization in mind. But it's like giving your time away. You're missing the point entirely, the content I refer to as more interesting is stuff people made for fun or on principle not because of financial incentive Imagine if people only commented on hn because they were expecting a paycheck for it