I'd argue Youtube was better when creators weren't paid and people were just having genuine fun. The internet used to be free and filled with content by people with passion. Much like users and the current state of the fediverse.

[–] Makeshift@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can absolutely understand that point of view and even agree to an extent.

However, as a counterpoint: creative people being able to support themselves with their work means they can focus on their art instead of it just being a side hobby to their money making job

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, but then you get channels like Linus Tech Tips where it became less about product reviews and just about volume production garbage content and forced contraversial content to keep revenue stream.

[–] nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Seems a lot of channels grow and employ more people but for like no reason now they have a bunch of employee's and costs and have to undermine their morals and quality to push out content to make money. In reality the quality of content has gone down so what was the point except employing friends and family at best.

[–] AngryMob@lemmy.one 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You also get countless other smaller channels that are just large enough to have youtube be their primary income, but small enough where they stay true to their original intent.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anytime it is your primary income there is built in propensity to stray to ensure you income is maintained when viewership might wane. I think the channels where a dude works full time and youtube is the side gig has more chance of maintaining integrity.

[–] TehPers@beehaw.org -1 points 1 year ago

A channel where a dude works full time and YouTube is a side gig wouldn't buy a $250k sound chamber to measure how loud the fans are on a crappy prebuilt (GN - the people who made the initial video about LTT). There are significant benefits to being full time dedicated to creating this content, and being paid well in response. Something like this would only be possible following your model if they already made tons of money outside of YT, in which case, they're already rich so what's stopping them from going full time doing what they want anyway and uploading those videos?

[–] socsa@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I really just hate the "influencer culture" it spawned, and every idiot trying to emulate that meta instead of just making content.

[–] Hexorg@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You bring a great point I hadn’t considered before. Only people with passion for something will do it for free while many more people with so that for cash. Though it’s interesting to see that cash doesn’t make passionate people’s content better it just makes more mediocre content.

[–] Holzkohlen@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Well, people with a passion also want to do what they do for a living.

[–] dominotheory@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

There's also a class issue at play. If it can only be an unpaid hobby, then only people with the time to dedicate to it (in lieu of a second paying gig) and the disposable income to buy the necessary equipment (financed entirely by their paid job) are able to participate. For example, I work with people who are also working artists. They use the income from selling their art from their hobby to pay for those materials. It's not enough to live off, so it's not their primary income, but they wouldn't be able to participate in their hobby at the level they currently are if they weren't able to sell their work. Allowing people to profit from their labor makes these spaces more inclusive and diverse.

[–] Hexorg@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Certainly - and there still are those channels that we all love for their dedication. But there are a lot more mediocre channels too