You can be angry about both things, the world isn’t black and white. Leave the fucking stones alone and blow up corporate headquarters for all I care.

I enjoyed reading that. Helldivers sounds like a fun game, and I’ll be rooting to keep the mines locked forever now, too - no matter how much the children yearn for them.

Sure. But the number of targets you could acquire there is miniscule compared to simpler delivery mechanisms, via a malicious app download, for example, and you have larger costs (hardware) and added risks, e. g. being captured on CCTV during installation.

That’s why I said, the cost/reward ratio is really off.

I have seen plenty of people who make excellent content and who I’d consider to be decent human beings. I also used to believe that YouTube was a cesspool hosting only crap, and I think it was via some new hobbies that I discovered the decent offerings.

That by the way is why I explicitly mentioned channels and personalities I’d like to exclude from my claim that creators that should receive financial support to be able to keep creating content.

Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.

Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.

That is - political topics aside - the same as getting a YouTube subscription.

I’d still prefer a platform run by content creators, naturally, so I fully support Nebula.

But if you’re paying for Netflix, why wouldn’t you simply pay for a premium account that doesn’t show you the ads? Is the content from your favorite YouTubers really that bad in comparison? I’ll admit, for me, it’s absolutely the opposite.

The examples you cited are not individuals. Both Pokimane and Ludwig are basically media companies at this point in time.

And yes, the amount of money you get from YouTube is a lot less, although I’m being told major YouTubers have direct platform deals. But that’s not the issue:

In order to even get those lucrative sponsorships, you need the reach of a major platform in order to build an audience - that’s not happening without e. g. YouTube.

How does the hosting provider for the actual content benefit from the Patreon accounts of the creators?

Should you then in turn also not consume content on YouTube at all? If so, great, you’re basically not affected by this discussion at all.

As for the topic itself: YouTube definitely has its share of problems, e. g. ElsaGate, unskippable ads in front of emergency medical advice, automated copyright strikes that are incredibly easy to abuse etc., but all those things are completely off topic.

Creators do get paid a share of the ad impressions. Many also are completely open about it and post videos of how well their videos did and how much money they earned from monetized videos, i. e. videos with ads - this is also why you hear many avoiding e. g. swear words, since YT’s auto detection will then flag their video for de-monetization.

But funny enough, that’s not what I said at all. The cost of running YouTube and the cost of the creators must be paid (plus creating an incentive to produce high quality content in the first place). That can be achieved by ads or by offering a subscription.

My original question still stands: if you were to build a video streaming platform tomorrow, what would your model for financing operation and content creation be?

Sure. But nobody had to invest multiple hours each day into maintaining their Geocities page - there are only so many animated GIFs you could load over a modem connection anyway. Also, are we really comparing the hosting expenses of fucking YouTube with static 90s fan pages?

People expect edited videos from content creators these days. Even someone filming a hobby in their home shop will get barked at for having bad audio quality, if, this week for once, they forgot to charge the batteries on their wireless Rode lavalier mic.

That’s why so many content creators do have e. g. Patreon. Many of them are providing peeks behind the scenes and create transparency to show how much effort a single video takes, and even individuals often hire someone to do the video edits for them.

If you’re fine watching unedited, 5-10 minute videos that can be churned out with next to no effort, all good. I’m really into 40-90 minute long videos and personally view YouTube as an alternative to obtain the content type I prefer, but I’d rather not sacrifice quality. I also prefer creators who provide a serialized format and upload a video every week - in that way, I guess I’m old fashioned.

This type of content is impossible to make without financial support, which I’ll gladly provide one way or the other. However, how much the average person can afford in terms of monthly subscription fees is certainly limited, so a company offering access to multiple creators for a flat subscription fee is absolutely reasonable.

So, how will content creators be reimbursed for the long hours they put into creating YouTube videos? There are honest people out there who made content creation their job. I say that to express I’m not talking about content farms, clickbait creators or “Mr. Beast” types - those are all media companies, although they also have bills to pay.

Did you get a premium account?

Not necessarily, if you find an exploit that allows you to install malware without user interaction, Mactans famously did that for an older iOS version.

I’d still argue that making good use of such an exploit and rolling out the necessary, physical infrastructure does not have a great cost/reward ratio.

That is perfectly fine, you do you.

However, if your mind is already set that way and you don’t want to expand your knowledge on the topic, there is nothing to be gained by simply expressing your disagreement and inability to understand another viewpoint - none of that benefits our discussion, and people may feel offended by the stubborn and quick dismissal of their stance.

That being said, spirituality is not a faith. Etymologically, we could argue that spirituality is closely related to religion, to Christianity even, and the desire to bridge the gap between man and god. That’s not how the term is typically used nowadays and would in fact confuse many people who are not aware of its original meaning.

It is absolutely possible to still interpret spirituality in a religious context, but it is no longer necessary to do so. Many people consider themselves to be non-religious or atheist and still express confidence and trust in spirituality. What spirituality means for these people should be defined on a case by case basis, but it can simply be about becoming a better person, finding ways to be content (or even happy) in life, or to find a greater, existential meaning. None of these things are necessarily connected to faith or any idea of a pantheon, salvation etc.

I do not know where you get your ideas about spirituality, about psychedelics etc., but I must say I find those views somewhat antiquated and maybe a bit hostile - they remind me a bit of the criticism the Hippie movement faced, and they’re certainly not overly nuanced. I can only implore you to try and find something positive in those things, something that speaks to you and that you can accept - you don’t have to agree with the conclusion, the lifestyle, or any individual aspect of it, but any time someone dismisses an entire field / movement / idea etc., it’s probably time to step back a bit and reconsider. I feel that should also be true for both psychedelics and spirituality.

I assume you don’t have a lot of experience with psychedelics, based on the fact that you believe these substances help you avoiding reality. Part of the recently re-discovered, therapeutical properties of psychedelics are due to the fact that they make you face your realities (and their general effect on the default mode network, of course).

Also, A. muscaria has been used for thousands of years, e. g. very likely as part of the Vedic Soma, or as ingredient in Haoma in Iran. The use of the mushroom has also been documented in Siberia, where, if your beliefs align with Alice Beck Kehoe, the only “real” shamans are located.

This is not a new development.

That being said, the effects of A. muscaria are probably not what people would think of when they think about psychedelics. As such, I don’t believe the majority of users would believe they are “connecting with the cosmos” in the first place.

Edit: Marketing the product as psychedelic alternative under the guise of allowing consumers to “connect with the cosmos” is a completely different (and despicable) beast, sure.

You are correct. It was probably not perfectly clear from my response, but I do not want to blame the individual here.

Naturally, the “Backup all my files” setting should not be opt-out, and when opting in, there should be easy and succinct explanations of what the implications are.

Lemmy as a whole is apparently a very technical community, so we often tend to forget that an understanding of these implications does not come naturally to all users, and that there are people that need a phone just like everyone else, but might not be in a position to acquire the knowledge required to make an informed decision.

I am fully with you regarding your conclusion, up to a point where I applaud regulatory action that protects customer interests, including privacy. I do not believe that companies will sort out these problems (or in any form of liberal “self regulation”, really) on their own, since it’s not in their interest to do so.

I guess I wanted to express that while things are obfuscated and software is full of malicious anti-patterns, we do have to take extra care to protect ourselves, and, as was the topic here, our kids. I still actively try to work on changing the current status though, politically or by making political decisions, e. g. looking at open source / projects that are more aligned with what I’d consider to be in the best interest of users, and I’d encourage everyone to do the same.

No, but it’s opt-out, and it is your responsibility to ensure that stuff like this doesn’t happen - full disclaimer, that is my personal opinion. Pictures of third parties that did not give explicit consent for each and every picture shouldn’t be uploaded to cloud providers etc., let alone pictures of kids and other parties who are unable to give proper consent.

My wife is incredibly careless with these things. She wants to know how to properly operate her smartphone and wants to care about e. g. privacy, and on paper, she does - but in practice, we do a 2 hour long session, I explain all the settings to her, where to find them, why they are important, what implications certain actions / options have for security, safety and even keeping her phone in working order, yet as soon as she walks out the door, she no longer cares one bit, will blindly click to accept all kinds of EULAs and default options, never investigate what the notifications about failed backups mean, never delete obsolete / already backed up data etc. up to a point where her phone no longer works and she then instructs Google Photos to upload multiple years of family pictures full of private moments, multiple children etc. to Google.

The UI is crappy enough so you’ll spend a significant amount of time deleting the pictures remotely, absolutely infuriating. I was furious, in particular because I can’t say that removing the pictures will also reverse all the potential consequences of sharing all your pictures with Google.

For reference, Google Photos does offer facial recognition, stores and estimates locations and even estimates activities based on media content.

IMHO, being this negligent is not excusable in this day and age.

And that’s exactly why I commented the way I did. I’ll also comment with a personal story to the original comment to further elaborate.

Yeah, why would you allow this to happen though?