←back to thread

321 points Helloworldboy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 1.176s | source
Show context
guiomie ◴[] No.15722732[source]
"It then displays it in the Brave Payments list, enabling the user to donate back on a monthly" ... So this will block ads on Youtube, and the creators will be compensated on donations? Does someone have a case-study on content/Youtube creators potentially making a living of donations? This seems like a bad business model: make creative videos and expect people to donate so you can feed yourself.
replies(6): >>15722815 #>>15722820 #>>15722842 #>>15722907 #>>15723255 #>>15724065 #
013a ◴[] No.15723255[source]
Creator produces content. I pay creator for content. Did you just suggest that the most traditional, direct business model ever created, value for value, is a "bad" one?

There are really only a couple problems: consumers have become accustomed to freeloading, and that there's no system in place to enable micropayments for content. Once we figure out a way to enable paying, let's say, $0.01 to watch a video or read a news article, the web will fundamentally change in a positive way.

replies(3): >>15723353 #>>15723814 #>>15725743 #
1. rdiddly ◴[] No.15723814[source]
"Value for value" is fine; but the value of watching a video or reading an article is usually about zero to me, something I could easily do without, something that might even carry a negative value since it takes up my time. In fact, since it usually benefits the maker to have more viewers, maybe they should try paying me to watch.

"Consumers" (a problematic term) need a refrigerator to keep food cold, figuratively speaking. They don't need "content." If money is what people care about, they should get into the refrigerator business. (In China, since that's where it is now.)

The web isn't a money machine. If everybody who wanted to get paid for it, got the hell off it or was starved off it, that also would lead to the positive fundamental change of which you speak. Just sayin'.