That’s the trap. These mega platforms feel like “liberating” creative outlets, but they take basically all the ad revenue and hand out scraps; the absolute bare minimum to keep creators around. And that ratio shrinks as the monopoly grows.
Yet creators, even journalists trained to sniff out profiteering, go in blind to that.
And yes, I get it. “Just don’t use them,” is much harder said than done.
…But they could be a little more critical of their platform, like this lady.
It’s just hype. They parade around people that “made it” with their revenue programs. The 99 or so % that never make any, or even lose, money in the process are never shown.
A close friend of mine invested a 4-figure amount into travels, gadgets and all sorts of stuff to show off… while being unemployed. Had a huge, organic crowd of followers, too, on several platforms. Tried everything, but never saw a single cent in return.
They are liberating creative outlets in the sense that they offer a platform and tools for creative expression (barring some ToS rules) for free. You can post a creative video that may be seen by thousands without needing to sell ownership to some company. They play ads to pay for its associated costs and yes, to turn a profit, while giving a small portion to the creators as an additional incentive. But they are not intended to replace regular income in a meaningful way. I have never heard of anyone suggesting that trying to do so is a good idea, including the big name content creators that by exception do manage to earn a living from it.
If you think it should be a reliable way to make money, I would say you have the unfair expectation for it. I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes. That’s just beyond the scope of what it’s there for.
See, this is technically true. But that is not how (say) YouTube presents itself.
They market professional creators, and algorithmically prioritize them. They set up extensive systems for them. They divert away from external linking, and create systems to explicity keep people withing their ad ecosystem. To regulators, YouTube argues that it’s still that same site to post “creative videos” to, like the cat video site it was a long time ago. Yet in the same breath, they turn around and do everything they can to crowd out professional journalism and media, to promite it across services, even viewing it as their “attention competition.”
They’re having their cake and eating it.
Discord’s the same. They depict it as private chat for gamers and friend groups, when it’s really host to larger interest communities, and eating similar sources alive.
Hence I disagree.
YouTube is setting the expectation for creators to make money, while arguing exactly what you’re arguing in court. And this:
I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes.
This is true! Yet YouTube wouldn’t be caught dead saying it, as it would cost them attention.
You have to use YouTube, Tiktok, whatever. But at least be a little more self aware and vocal of the platform’s pitfalls.
And to be clear, some content creators already are. But it needs to be the majority. They need to remind every single viewer “this place is a trap, a bloodsucking leech, and we’re here because we have no choice.” Just subtly enough to avoid deranking, of course.
Hence articles like this bother me:
https://www.axios.com/2025/12/13/joy-reid-leaving-corporate-media
That’s the trap. These mega platforms feel like “liberating” creative outlets, but they take basically all the ad revenue and hand out scraps; the absolute bare minimum to keep creators around. And that ratio shrinks as the monopoly grows.
Yet creators, even journalists trained to sniff out profiteering, go in blind to that.
And yes, I get it. “Just don’t use them,” is much harder said than done.
…But they could be a little more critical of their platform, like this lady.
There is a word for it: enshittification
It’s just hype. They parade around people that “made it” with their revenue programs. The 99 or so % that never make any, or even lose, money in the process are never shown.
A close friend of mine invested a 4-figure amount into travels, gadgets and all sorts of stuff to show off… while being unemployed. Had a huge, organic crowd of followers, too, on several platforms. Tried everything, but never saw a single cent in return.
Yeah.
Hence most that “make it” do it through external links, like sponsors, OnlyFans, merch, blog/newsletter subscriptions and such.
Yet the platforms are trying to squash that. Just the other day, I witnessed the official YouTube Android TV app skip a video’s sponsor.
I agree… but somehow I don’t think you meant to say this
They are liberating creative outlets in the sense that they offer a platform and tools for creative expression (barring some ToS rules) for free. You can post a creative video that may be seen by thousands without needing to sell ownership to some company. They play ads to pay for its associated costs and yes, to turn a profit, while giving a small portion to the creators as an additional incentive. But they are not intended to replace regular income in a meaningful way. I have never heard of anyone suggesting that trying to do so is a good idea, including the big name content creators that by exception do manage to earn a living from it.
If you think it should be a reliable way to make money, I would say you have the unfair expectation for it. I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes. That’s just beyond the scope of what it’s there for.
See, this is technically true. But that is not how (say) YouTube presents itself.
They market professional creators, and algorithmically prioritize them. They set up extensive systems for them. They divert away from external linking, and create systems to explicity keep people withing their ad ecosystem. To regulators, YouTube argues that it’s still that same site to post “creative videos” to, like the cat video site it was a long time ago. Yet in the same breath, they turn around and do everything they can to crowd out professional journalism and media, to promite it across services, even viewing it as their “attention competition.”
They’re having their cake and eating it.
Discord’s the same. They depict it as private chat for gamers and friend groups, when it’s really host to larger interest communities, and eating similar sources alive.
Hence I disagree.
YouTube is setting the expectation for creators to make money, while arguing exactly what you’re arguing in court. And this:
This is true! Yet YouTube wouldn’t be caught dead saying it, as it would cost them attention.
And that’s not okay.
Where then? What’s free with a shot at getting views/revenue?
That’s what I’m saying.
You have to use YouTube, Tiktok, whatever. But at least be a little more self aware and vocal of the platform’s pitfalls.
And to be clear, some content creators already are. But it needs to be the majority. They need to remind every single viewer “this place is a trap, a bloodsucking leech, and we’re here because we have no choice.” Just subtly enough to avoid deranking, of course.