- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I’ve been thinking a lot recently about PeerTube, Loops, Bandwagon, and other platforms in the Fediverse that are geared around artists. I might get flamed for this, and you’re welcome to disagree, but I think the network is in dire need of having support for commerce.
Not “Big Capitalism” commerce, but the ability for people to buy and sell things, support projects, and commission their favorite creators to keep making more stuff.
Hey, um … I read your article. Or I tried to.
It lost me at the point where I need to give money to somebody else. So, basically right at the start.
To be more specific, your article starts of lamenting that its not convenient enough for me to give money to someone (“content creators”, a bullshit term if I’ve ever heard one) on these federated platforms. “this is a bit of a problem” There’s no examination of whether we should be doing this. Its taken as a given that monetization is a positive goal.
So … I really tried to get there and understand your point, but there’s this vast gulf between us.
Why would it be bad if nobody makes any money off the fediverse?
That sounds good to me.
I don’t agree, really … that’d limit the Fediverse to hobbyists.
It’s completely legitimate to look for income & exposure as a creator, whether you’re making music, visual art, or document your process making physical objects. Corporate platforms, as crappy as they might be, provide a path to that, and in many ways created viable path for creators to do what they like full-time. Not saying that it’s perfect or easy. But the Fediverse is currently no alternative at all …
Currently, restricting yourself to the Fediverse as an artist unfortunately means that you’re taking quite a hit in terms of exposure you can get. As long as that’s the case, and people even defend it, then we really can’t complain that the Fediverse isn’t attractive for a larger amount of people, and centralized platforms will always have the bigger draw.
I try to avoid corporate platforms as much as I can, but as a consumer I often feel starved of content. I haven’t found any interesting woodworking channels on PeerTube, or guitar repair channels, or whatever else I enjoy watching to wind down.
And as a creator, well … it’s not my source of income, but I sure would like it to be. And if I ever decide to make that step, I’m pretty sure that I’s have to make amends to my “no corporate platforms” approach. The Fediverse doesn’t feed you.
Ok. I can follow this line of reasoning.
If you want to avoid corporate platforms, fediverse doesn’t provide as viable an alternative as one might like.
This is clear, and makes sense. Thanks for the succinct explanation. At least I see some sense here now.
I’m not entirely sure that it matters.
Like, when was it decided that the ‘making money’ bit needed to be imported from YouTube?
The “making money” bit doesn’t need to be imported, necessarily. It’s not an end unto itself. But if we want a large amount of high-quality content, while society is capitalistic, then it does. Because high-quality content takes a lot of time to produce, and not many people can afford to do it as a hobby. The scenario you’re describing means that who have the skills to do it could do it while making money on YouTube or Patreon, or they could do it for free on the fediverse while not making money (or making money in a more conventional job, creating the stuff that we love them for only in their spare time—limiting the quantity they can produce).
I doesn’t “need” to be imported, the question is just, where do we see the future of federated (non-)platforms ? Do we want them to be “small and cozy” with a small and fairly narrow selection of content or do we want a non-corporate alternative that can compete in richness and variety of interesting content of all niches?
A lot of folks only seem to see the crappy part of youtube and other platforms, and don’t see the richness of content that exists ther. There’s still so much interesting stuff to be found. I don’t think there has ever been a bigger archive of, say, documentation about arts, crafts, history, food, than YT, even it its current enshittified form. If that’s an ocean of content, the Fediverse isn’t even a major river (at least that’s my impression).
If you don’t mind that, great. But I do, I’d love a non-corporate version to exist that can compete in terms of richness of content.
And monetary incentive is part of the puzzle, as it incentivizes people to spend time on it, which in terms generates a bigger audience, which in turn has a higher potential to support a wider range of content niches. Plain and simple.
Well, the more of youtube we import … the more of youtube we import. Part of the reason we aren’t flooded with crap on the fediverse is that we are too small to matter. And perhaps we are small enough to effectively police our own. So … why would we want to import youtube at all? Bigger is not better.
The advantage of the fediverse is how well it should be able to scale, thanks to its federated nature. A big part of the problem with YouTube is that its large scale but centralised nature means that they just throw AI at the moderation problem, and it is infamously terrible. Censoring important conversations and sensitive subjects, while letting through actual child abuse. And because it’s centralised, users (both viewers and creators) don’t have an easy option to turn somewhere else without losing the whole network effect.
It’s compounded by the fact that the majority of monetisation on there is driven by advertising. Direct funding via a Patreon-like model (optional payment to receive some minor bonuses, primarily for supporting the creator), a Nebula-style model (subscription to access content), or a BATish model (forget most of the actual details of BAT, especially the crypto, but imagine a system—which could be voluntary or mandatory depending on the individual system, creator, or piece of content—in which users stick a bunch of money into a wallet, and it is automatically shared with the creators whose content they are viewing in some fair manner). Not having actual advertisements, combined with better, more local moderation decisions, would help stave off the biggest problems with YouTube.
What’s bullshit about content creators? I enjoy watching documentaries from The History Channel or The Learning Channel. If someone does a bunch of research and self-publishes a documentary, they’re somehow less valid?
The article isn’t about anybody “making money off the fediverse”. It’s about finding a way to make the fediverse viable, considering that everybody wants to use it, but nobody wants to donate.
Youtube was a lot more fun before it was flooded with professionals out to make a buck on advertising. This thing you seek … it is not good.
You’re referencing a time when the content was also completely useless, and ZERO production values were expected.
Times have changed, old man.
wat
Perhaps this will explain it better
https://lemmy.world/comment/20830214
That’s a link. They also call them URLs. We learned about them in web class, back in the stone age.
Not OP, but I’d work real fucking hard to give us something that can be a viable alternative to Youtube where a corporate monopoly doesn’t take 95% of the cash. It doesn’t even need to be federated, but we all see the shithole Odysee immediately became. We have a substantial number of people here with like interests and marginally like feelings on a lot of topics that would make great video content.
Peertube has been around for 7 years, and there isn’t enough content on it to occupy even a Linux nerd for more than 30 minutes a week. People are only making videos on YouTube because they can make some semblance of a living at it.
I think giving people who are willing to create videos some decent tools for monetization in open products would be a reasonably good idea. We have nothing there now; we don’t have anything to lose by it. It’s not like great content that doesn’t exist can be walled off to us.
This could be as easy as forking peertube and putting in patreon privitization links. Or it could be a federated version of KoFi that ties in.
Honestly the best YouTube alternative at the moment is Nebula. The problem is that it’s a closed system. You can’t just make an account and start uploading, you have to be invited. So the range of content is fairly limited compared to YouTube. But unlike many other platforms, it is designed to be fairly general-purpose. There are some excellent individual creators’ platforms, like Dropout, Viva+, Club TWiT, etc. But you only get a single creator/team’s videos on those. Dropout is improv comedy. Viva+ is sketch comedy. Club TWiT is tech news. Whereas Nebula is more of a coop owned by tens of different creators with content including news, media analysis (including film, games, and music), politics, science, short films, game shows, and more. It’s not federated, but it’s independent and worker owned-ish.
I often forget about nebula. I really do like their model. Personally, I think their biggest problem is lacking a free trial. They’re curating, so I expect they’ll have some pretty solid content. But every time I consider them I go and browse their catalog and I don’t recognize most of it, and that what I do recognize is marginally interesting to me, but not worthy of payment.
I suspect their closed model is because it’s very expensive to host that data, and they want to make sure that whoever they put up there is worth spending the money on. Return on investment, yada, yada.
They have a 3 day free trial by default. And members can also give out a limited number of “guest passes” which act as a 1 week free trial.
That’s probably part of it. It’s also a marketing tactic. They’re positioning themselves as a premium service. They want customers to know that if something is on Nebula it’s going to be good. Similar to the way Apple positions themselves as premium by not selling a $200 smartphone, or Mercedez-Benz, or Louis-Vuitton.
It’s also about trust. One of the things they’re trying to do with Nebula is to provide creators a space to safely discuss controversial topics without censorship. But with that, along with the fact that they have a coop-type structure, comes the need to be able to trust that the people uploading on their platform aren’t gonna be Nazis.
Well look at that, last time I checked it was guest pass or nothing. good move on their part!
I’ll have to give them a shot after the holidays.
I’ll be honest, if you’ve looked at their catalogue already and it didn’t appeal to you, that’s unlikely to change after a free trial. If you do end up signing up though, make sure to go through one of the creators’ URLs. You get a much better price that way.
For me, when I first signed up for it 2 or 3 years ago, the thing that finally made me pull the trigger was Tom Scott’s Money, the social game show that was, at the time, Nebula-exclusive. But there were probably 5 or 6 other channels I already regularly watched on YouTube too, like Wendover/HAI, Lindsay Ellis (who has since basically left YouTube and exclusively uses Nebula), and Patrick H Willems. And in the time since, they’ve added like 10 or more channels that I already watched on YouTube, such as Not Just Bikes, Angela Collier, TLDR News, Legal Eagle, and Tantacrul. It’s also helped me rediscover creators I once watched but stopped for no particular reason, like Cult Tennis (which is fantastic even though I have no real interest in the sport of tennis otherwise) and Medlife Crisis; and new channels I first discovered thanks to Nebula, like CityNerd, Linus Boman, and ReligionForBreakfast; and channels I had seen once or twice on YouTube but never regularly watched, but Nebula made me realise are regularly putting out good stuff, like People Make Games (if you haven’t seen it already, I assume their two videos about the Rockstar union busting are on YouTube and highly recommend those) and Razbuten.
Thanks for the thorough write-up.
It’s not so much that it doesn’t appeal; it’s more like I’m looking at a menu in a foreign language.
I’m middle-aged, I like science, tech, retro, gaming, and whatever VLDL is. I am open-minded to new things, but prefer substance over screaming and outrage. I’ve spent a lot of time sifting through Odysee and Peertube for anything redeeming, and while I’ve not come up empty-handed, I’ve also not found enough content to offset my YouTube habit enough to walk away from the platform (my goal). The service is half the monthly price of Netflix, and while I don’t expect a production company full of quality entertainment, I’d like to be able to fill a couple of hours a day with vaguely interesting programming.
I’ll check em out post holidays pass and my finances recover.
You’ll find a lot of that on Nebula. Though the “gaming” in particular is mostly limited to more video essays about gaming, analysis of gaming culture/game development, game design, etc. You’re unlikely to find game tutorials, let’s plays, etc. See channels like Extra Credits, People Make Games, and Razbuten for example. Or the gaming category. One thing I really like about Nebula as compared to Netflix-style “traditional” content streaming platforms is that you can browse their entire library without an account, exactly the same as you would with one.
You’ll find much less of that. Dropout might appeal to you though, if Viva does. Dropout is mostly improv comedy, often with a nerdy bent to it. “Um, Actually” is particularly good. I think there’s probably some scripted content on Dropout too, more akin to Viva’s stuff.
You will definitely get this on Nebula. While some of their creators do use rather clickbaity titles and thumbnails, that’s predominantly because they just use the same title & thumbnail that they have on YouTube, and the unfortunate reality is that that’s necessary to get clicks to satisfy the YouTube algorithm. The actual content though is always more considered. It’s one of the defining things about the platform, and it’s part of why they’re invite-only for creators.
It’s $60 annually for a naked sign-up, but $36 annually if you go through a creator’s code. Any creator. There’s literally no reason to ever pay the higher number. That’s $3 per month, though at that price I find it easier to talk about the annual cost than monthly.
Plus, when they last increased prices in September 2024, they also guaranteed existing customers could keep their older prices. They didn’t guarantee that will be true for future new signups on future price increases, but that seems likely.
Ok, I quibble with much of what you just wrote, but your first line contained a lucid point.
In essence, you propose that a federated monetization scheme would direct the bulk of the pie to the participants and not to the big corporate interests.
Now that’s a damned interesting thing to consider.
I think its obvious that it would/will go awry. Any time you get non-profits screwing around with money, somebody figures out how to steal it.
But if even a bit more went to the participants and paid for infrastructure, that would be a positive thing.
But again … non-profits and coops never handle money correctly. Watch this get all the way to the goalpost and then swoop, it all gets handled with GooglePay. Its doomed. DOOM.
I’m not even sure that is possible, but I’d like to see us try something.
Maybe the best place to start is by allowing a microtransaction service into the UI and let people add their own API keys to known players.