this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
303 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
58180 readers
4607 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Start asking your favourite content creators to post on PeerTube.
or odysee ig but i cannot find a good peertube instance i can post in
And how are they going to make a living to keep producing videos?
I’d say ask them to join Nebula.
They can still post on YouTube.
It might take a tiny bit of their revenue away but I doubt it would make much of a dent, especially for creators that run mostly on patreon anyway.
That depends. If they only make a living with YT ads, then it’s going to be hard.
I guess I forgot things like Patreon which could be a valid option. Although I’m neither a fan of subscribing to specific creators nor am I particularly fond of Patreon.
With Nebula my perception is that I pay a monthly fee and they can figure out who gets what depending on whose videos I watched. I don’t need to be particular in my action on who to support.
Nebula is a good option, but now you've created a paywall. Now only people who can afford it, can watch the content and what is to keep Nebula from upping the price of the subscription?
If ads is out of the question, then content creators need to use sponsors and patrons, if they want to make a living.
An advantage of funding things via a collective like Nebula as opposed to each individual creator managing their own patrons is that new creators can start making bigger, more expensive projects quicker. Even established creators have this advantage, they can take bigger risks on bigger projects with the safety net of a share of the nebula pie.
I don't think a project like The Prince would exist without Nebula, for example.
FYI, Nebula isn't a collective: https://scribe.rip/@cameron-paul/who-actually-owns-nebula-952a1c12d9c0
Thanks for the link, it was a very interesting read. While it is disappointing that it's not actually a collective (assuming this blog post is accurate), having a platform run and owned by 6 creators is still better than YouTube's governance structure, and still has the advantage in having both the capacity and desire to invest in creators.
They also can use sponsors in the video, but that only works when you have enough views.
You could also send money via paypal or kofi if you don't like subscriptions, if the creator has it set up.
About half the ads I see on YouTube are already within the videos they post. I wonder what the overall ratio is of YouTube ad revenue versus in-video ad revenue.
Are you talking about sponsors? Because yes, that has nothing to do with YT ads.
All the people I watch on youtube make the majority of their money on patreon or twitch. Youtube is way too heavy handed with demonitization and copyright strikes to be a trutsworthy income source.
Remember when people posted on YouTube for fun? It's only when it became a viable business that the platform turned to shit.
Patreon and all the other services creators have at their disposal already.
Don't think most Youtubers can make a living these days solely on YT as revenue, and are already exploring other avenues.
I just want the videos no creator makes money on. I expect thats about 50% at least. Let’s start there. Put them in the Library of Congress and YouTube will be free to enshittify themselves into oblivion without complaint.
Civvie 11 is a old head. How do I convince him?
What have you tried so far?
And while we're at it, stop calling them 'content creators'
I'll take the name Content Creator over Influencer any day.
What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?
Well, we start by referring ta work not as "content", but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.
... Which is a type of content.
There's a lot of content that doesn't fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.
Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣
His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it's called content for a reason.
Do we need a general term? Someone who uploads their videos to a video platform is probably a "video producer".
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creator
Why? What else would we call them?
To answer the "why", it's because the word "content" is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons... it's all just this generic "content" slop that's just there to feed the machine
What a strange opinion.
It's not that strange, I have a friend who literally said the same thing today in reference to one of his favourite channels shutting down. He preferred to call the stuff on this channel art, rather than content. I agree with the person above too, the term has always bugged me. It makes it sound so mass produced, like your job is to just produce meaningless "content" for people to mindlessly consume. And to be honest, that's exactly what the mainstream YouTube culture is about.
I mean, you don't call it whatever you like, but content is the technical definition of it.
Not really. The term "content creator" is corporate speak. Google's ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It's not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation's binary world view.
Words is funny sometimes.
Entertainers. Show women/men.
Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn't call an entertainer. That's why "content creator" is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno "medical" exploitation film
Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.
Entertainer isn't a label I'd necessarily apply to educational content, for example.
Then call them educators, or presenters... teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
What do you have against creators as a label? I don't really see these difference myself.
Or just call them Content creators, recognize they don't really produce value for anyone but YT's grab on the attention economy and start living in the real world.
Yes it's much better to use
"comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls"
... than...
"content creators".
Right. Call them youtubers! Wait...
Male/female adult online entertainer?