Anon watches youtube - eviltoast
  • Auth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    19 days ago

    Most youtubers are businesses owned by corporate networks. The person on screen is just the talent pretending to be an organic channel.

  • DandomRude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    Sometimes I get the impression that social media fame is continuing the narrative of the American dream worldwide: strangely enough, many people assume that it happens regularly that someone steps out of their parent’s bedroom, records a few videos, and overnight, without much effort, becomes a multimillionaire – just like that.

    This is the absolute exception and has hardly happened at all for a long time. Online, it’s long been like the real world economy: without the support of powerful players, it’s basically impossible for anyone to become successful. It’s a tough business with an endless number of competing content producers, from whom influential financiers can choose the content and the faces to go with it and pocket the lion’s share.

    And there is yet another misconception underlying the illusion of quick money: you only earn enough to live on once you have a certain reach – something very few people achieve. Most work hard for ridiculously low income, if they earn anything at all.

    Consumers, on the other hand, persist in the attitude that the internet has taught them over the last twenty years: they expect high-quality content on a daily basis without having to pay anything for that. They assume that the producers of this content earn good money from it, but in the vast majority of cases - and if there is any money made in the first place - this is not true at all, because it is not the creative people who earn big, but those who exploit them.

    Anyone who believes that content producers can finance themselves through voluntary donations is usually completely wrong — Wikipedia’s fundraising campaigns, in which only a tiny percentage of users contribute anything, are just one example of many, even though Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in many countries around the world.

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        19 days ago

        Exactly, it’s the American dream that has always been propagated to conceal the true circumstances and thus ensure that everything stays the same.

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Anyone who believes that content producers can finance themselves through voluntary donations is usually completely wrong

      It works quite well on Twitch - if you have a lot of viewers on Twitch, you usually get enough donations to live off of. YouTube just never managed to find a good way to make creators profit directly from their content.

      • DandomRude@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 days ago

        Yes, having a large audience is the problem. If you have that, you can earn good money on YouTube too, especially since you can sign additional marketing deals. The thing is, though, that getting a large audience is anything but easy—most people who try fail.

        • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          The audience you need to make good money on YouTube, without external deals, is orders of magnitudes larger than on Twitch, though.

          It’s true that getting a large audience on Twitch is really hard nowadays, though. Seems like it was a lot easier a couple of years ago, not sure if it’s just because of changed algorithms or because of market saturation.

          • DandomRude@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            18 days ago

            Yes, that may be true. I can’t say much about Twitch because I don’t know anything about it.

      • [object Object]@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        I was linking to it to show all sorts of things that can be manipulated, but now that I look back to it, it does look like I’m promoting it. Yeah, I’ll remove it.

  • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 days ago

    This is exactly the story behind Hot Ones and I disliked it from first view. Commenters like ‘OMG how does he get these guests. So glad he’s succeeding.’ Dude it’s literally a corporation.

    Just a ‘late night show’ format for celebrities to sell their latest book/movie in gen Z format.

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 days ago

    Currently watching a bunch of videos detailing the fall of PirateSoftware. Such a sad person.

      • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        19 days ago

        Stopped reading after “if it’s promoted by YT it’s not worth watching”, that shit is based on your recently watched channels if your account settings aren’t all fucked up.
        If you turn off history - yeah, you’ll get default recommendations and those are cancer. Probably the only good reason to turn history on. Even then, it’s a bandaid on a horrible UI that gets worse every update.