←back to thread

321 points Helloworldboy | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.508s | source | bottom
Show context
Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.15722757[source]
Yeah this isn't going to fly with Youtube itself, they're not going to host ad-free videos so that a 3rd party can take their nontrivial portion of the ad revenue.

Schemes like this are nice, but don't forget who pays for hosting, serving and promoting the content.

replies(5): >>15722822 #>>15723081 #>>15723534 #>>15724672 #>>15727298 #
Helloworldboy ◴[] No.15722822[source]
I think you might be misunderstanding how it works. Its essentially Patreon. Will it work? Who knows. Can youtube stop it from happening? Probably not any more than they can stop Patreon.
replies(4): >>15722957 #>>15722993 #>>15724269 #>>15724815 #
1. thisisit ◴[] No.15722993[source]
But then the question becomes what do these guys offer which Patreon doesnt?

Still my understanding is that Patreon doesn't automatically allow people to view YT videos ad free. Sure people get donations and the amount of donations drive the number of videos etc but they don't go into YT's territory.

replies(3): >>15723021 #>>15724149 #>>15724286 #
2. Helloworldboy ◴[] No.15723021[source]
Agreed. I think it might come down to the entirety of the BAT ecosystem (ad blocking browser, optional ads that you earn $ for turning on, micro donation system in the spirit of patreon). I certainly think its worth watching to see how it unfolds at least.
3. AlwaysBCoding ◴[] No.15724149[source]
> But then the question becomes what do these guys offer which Patreon doesnt?

Patreon censors conservatives off their platform. [Context if you don't know what I'm talking about -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofpbDgCj9rw]

To some non-trivial minority of content creators that is reason enough to not use it. As someone who makes youtube vids and is thinking about scaling a brand, I want nothing to do with a tech platform that believes it should be the sole arbiter of who can and cannot solicit p2p donations/payments for their videos. I want a politically-neutral technology / payment mechanism.

Brave seems to be more ideologically aligned with myself, so I would rather go that route. Even though the current iteration has quite a few centralized stop-gates, I think it's feasible that Brave and the BAT system could ultimately provide a way for me to monetize my video content directly from users with BAT tokens and not have to deal with Jack Conte's moral grandstanding as a single point of failure for my revenue streams.

4. glenstein ◴[] No.15724286[source]
I may be misunderstanding something, since I'm not a youtube creator, but couldn't someone sufficiently comfortable with the other revenue streams they have at their disposal voluntarily choose to demonetize their own youtube videos?
replies(2): >>15725302 #>>15726080 #
5. tialaramex ◴[] No.15725302[source]
Yes, Jim Sterling's videos are deliberately demonetized, his revenue comes via Patreon.
6. rcthompson ◴[] No.15726080[source]
For now, yes. But what people are saying is that if large numbers of YouTube content creators turn off ads and switch to getting their monetary support through Brave, Patreon, or some other income stream that YouTube doesn't profit from, there's nothing stopping YouTube from changing their policy in the future to make video ads mandatory.
replies(1): >>15727008 #
7. ForHackernews ◴[] No.15727008{3}[source]
> there's nothing stopping YouTube from changing their policy in the future to make video ads mandatory.

Ideally in that scenario, competition would push creators and viewers onto some other platform.

Not sure how realistic that is, given the network effects involved with YouTube.