At some point I think we just have to realize that the vast majority of content we’re accustomed to consuming via services like YouTube and Nebula is just not that valuable. If a creator has to know they’ll get ad revenue or subscription fee sharing and influence through social capital in order to post whatever they’ve filmed, then they simply aren’t very passionate about whatever they’ve made. Why should we be passionate about consuming it then?
By contrast, one great thing about something like Peertube is that since revenue isn’t guaranteed just for uploading passably entertaining junk, the creators who post their own stuff there are really honestly actually passionate and see value in what they made. They want to share it, even if they don’t get anything for doing it.
That kind of creator is so much more worth us gracing with our eyeballs and our donation support than whatever anyone still posting solely on YouTube or some other corpo platform is shitting out.
We also get the huge benefit of Peertube being highly distributed, so the privacy is exponentially better by default.
Edit: Sorry, you asked about Nebula and I just soapboxed about stuff that isn’t Nebula. I paid for Nebula for a while, and it was okay. It had less available content than even Peertube does though, and as others have pointed out, it’s still a corporate service with all the privacy caveats that involves.
If a creator has to know they’ll get ad revenue or subscription fee sharing and influence through social capital in order to post whatever they’ve filmed, then they simply aren’t very passionate about whatever they’ve made
You ever consider that they couldn’t create that content without the funding at all? Like, camera equipment is expensive. Time is money. People got rent to pay. Not everyone can afford to spend hours and hours entertaining you without any compensation.
No? That’s not what I said. I’m assuming here that you are engaging in good faith, though I’m genuinely puzzled how you can continue to draw the conclusions you seem to have drawn from reading what I wrote above.
What I did say is that the people posting content without getting compensated for it are more likely to be doing it out of pure passion. The people posting on corporate platforms who also refuse to post on open platforms are doing it primarily for the money. They undeniably are less passionate about their content because of that. If they were as passionate as the first group, then they’d also be uploading to open platforms because it would be more important to them to get the content shared than to be guaranteed revenue from every single platform.
I also said that the people who are posting content on open platforms without any promise of revenue are more in need of donations than people posting solely on corporate platforms that have a revenue model rewarding creators. The latter group is already getting compensated by their corporate sponsors and ads. The former are not being paid on the open platforms, and need viewer donations far more because of that. I can’t see how any of this is controversial in any way. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, most especially when they openly give their work into the commons.
are you one of those people that offers artists the opportunity to do free work in exchange for exposure? because that’s what your comment makes you sound like.
the line that my people use in response to that offer is, “you know, people die from exposure”.
we also like “oh great! my landlord just started accepting exposure in lieu of money.”
At some point I think we just have to realize that the vast majority of content we’re accustomed to consuming via services like YouTube and Nebula is just not that valuable. If a creator has to know they’ll get ad revenue or subscription fee sharing and influence through social capital in order to post whatever they’ve filmed, then they simply aren’t very passionate about whatever they’ve made. Why should we be passionate about consuming it then?
By contrast, one great thing about something like Peertube is that since revenue isn’t guaranteed just for uploading passably entertaining junk, the creators who post their own stuff there are really honestly actually passionate and see value in what they made. They want to share it, even if they don’t get anything for doing it.
That kind of creator is so much more worth us gracing with our eyeballs and our donation support than whatever anyone still posting solely on YouTube or some other corpo platform is shitting out.
We also get the huge benefit of Peertube being highly distributed, so the privacy is exponentially better by default.
Edit: Sorry, you asked about Nebula and I just soapboxed about stuff that isn’t Nebula. I paid for Nebula for a while, and it was okay. It had less available content than even Peertube does though, and as others have pointed out, it’s still a corporate service with all the privacy caveats that involves.
You ever consider that they couldn’t create that content without the funding at all? Like, camera equipment is expensive. Time is money. People got rent to pay. Not everyone can afford to spend hours and hours entertaining you without any compensation.
Absolutely! That’s exactly why I said we should support those creators who are doing it for the passion of it with our donations.
So funding from donations = passion and funding from anywhere else = no passion?
No? That’s not what I said. I’m assuming here that you are engaging in good faith, though I’m genuinely puzzled how you can continue to draw the conclusions you seem to have drawn from reading what I wrote above.
What I did say is that the people posting content without getting compensated for it are more likely to be doing it out of pure passion. The people posting on corporate platforms who also refuse to post on open platforms are doing it primarily for the money. They undeniably are less passionate about their content because of that. If they were as passionate as the first group, then they’d also be uploading to open platforms because it would be more important to them to get the content shared than to be guaranteed revenue from every single platform.
I also said that the people who are posting content on open platforms without any promise of revenue are more in need of donations than people posting solely on corporate platforms that have a revenue model rewarding creators. The latter group is already getting compensated by their corporate sponsors and ads. The former are not being paid on the open platforms, and need viewer donations far more because of that. I can’t see how any of this is controversial in any way. Artists deserve to be compensated for their work, most especially when they openly give their work into the commons.
You seem to be unaware of your own comments you wrote because:
That’s not what you said in the section I quoted above. What you said was “they simply aren’t very passionate”.
are you one of those people that offers artists the opportunity to do free work in exchange for exposure? because that’s what your comment makes you sound like.
the line that my people use in response to that offer is, “you know, people die from exposure”.
we also like “oh great! my landlord just started accepting exposure in lieu of money.”
pay artists and punch nazis every day.
I think you missed the part where I said we need to support the creators who aren’t getting ad revenue with our donations.