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.
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.