undefined | Better HN

0 pointskelnos1y ago0 comments

That's the thing... people would still make free content, and since there wouldn't be as many shady ways to monetize, it would cut down on low-effort (and AI-generated) garbage. The internet would be such a better place.

We would probably lose some good stuff, or see it moved behind paywalls. That would be a shame, but I think it would be worth it.

0 comments

fragmede1y ago

I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage. The high effort non-garbage stuff is produced by professionals who have the luxury of spending a full work week's amount of time improving their craft. writers writing free content with no business model can't do that unless they have a trust fund. which, I suppose they're out there, but I doubt the number of those that are writers.

josefx1y ago

> I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage.

Right now the main search engine everyone uses is run by an ad company. Just getting rid of that conflict of interest would probably help to significantly weed out garbage.

nox1011y ago

I'm pretty confident that without advertising, the majority of YouTube channels people love most would not exist.

maybe overall that would be a good thing as there's so much trash too

rchaud1y ago

Youtube didn't have ads for years. Yet there was plenty of content people uploaded with no expectation of payment. Just like the early Internet. MIT OCW and Khan Academy also pre-date YT.

As for all the high production value channels out there now, YT doesn't pay their bills, subscriptions, brand deals and merchandise do. YT is like MTV: good for exposure, the real product is sold through other channels.

grishka1y ago

And that's fine. YouTube channels are always better when they're someone's hobby rather than a full-time job.

nox1011y ago

hard disagree. the majority of the channels I love the most have become full time jobs.

hypeatei1y ago

I'm pretty sure ad revenue for most channels is negligible so they resort to third party sponsorships or platforms like Patreon. The advertisements are there for Google to recoup some of the cost of running YT.

nox1011y ago

not sure what your point is. let's assume it's true. That still means the ads are paying for YouTube to host the videos. Without that those channels would have to pay for hosting themselves and could not afford to make the content.

Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start

Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc... which means even without YouTube's ads they're still ad driven

1 more reply

digging1y ago

Most of my favorite channels make more money from one or more of:

1. Premium subscribers

2. Direct support on Patreon

3. Direct video sponsorship (a form of advertising, but wholly tolerable IMO)

4. Direct support by joining Nebula, which has no ads

geoffpado1y ago

I don’t know if it’s still true, but at least up until relatively recently, #3 and #4 were the same thing; Nebula paid its creators in YouTube sponsorship. (i.e, if you were a Nebula creator, you got “paid” by Nebula buying sponsorships on your YouTube channel)

nox1011y ago

3 is ads and fits my point. The content wouldn't exist without ads.

Tepix1y ago

I remember an internet without ads. It was hardly all low-effeort garbage.

stavros1y ago

That's the GP's point too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

fragmede1y ago

josefx1y ago

> I doubt that it would cut down on the amount of low effort garbage.

Right now the main search engine everyone uses is run by an ad company. Just getting rid of that conflict of interest would probably help to significantly weed out garbage.

nox1011y ago

I'm pretty confident that without advertising, the majority of YouTube channels people love most would not exist.

maybe overall that would be a good thing as there's so much trash too

rchaud1y ago

Youtube didn't have ads for years. Yet there was plenty of content people uploaded with no expectation of payment. Just like the early Internet. MIT OCW and Khan Academy also pre-date YT.

grishka1y ago

And that's fine. YouTube channels are always better when they're someone's hobby rather than a full-time job.

nox1011y ago

hard disagree. the majority of the channels I love the most have become full time jobs.

hypeatei1y ago

nox1011y ago

Further, most of them would have never even tried if it wasn't free to start

Then, I don't buy your premise. Most of the channels I watch insert ads directly for Brilliant, NordVPN, etc... which means even without YouTube's ads they're still ad driven

1 more reply

digging1y ago

Most of my favorite channels make more money from one or more of:

1. Premium subscribers

2. Direct support on Patreon

3. Direct video sponsorship (a form of advertising, but wholly tolerable IMO)

4. Direct support by joining Nebula, which has no ads

geoffpado1y ago

nox1011y ago

3 is ads and fits my point. The content wouldn't exist without ads.

Tepix1y ago

I remember an internet without ads. It was hardly all low-effeort garbage.

stavros1y ago

That's the GP's point too.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse