211

The Fediverse and Content Creation: Monetization (deadsuperhero.com)

submitted 4 days ago by deadsuperhero@lemmy.world to c/fediverse@lemmy.world

69 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 14 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

You're referencing a time when the content was also completely useless, and ZERO production values were expected.

Times have changed, old man.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 2 days ago

wat

[-] Krudler@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Perhaps this will explain it better

https://lemmy.world/comment/20830214

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 2 days ago

That's a link. They also call them URLs. We learned about them in web class, back in the stone age.

[-] megrania@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 3 days ago

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?

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

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).

[-] megrania@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 4 points 3 days ago

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.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 days ago

I think its obvious that it would/will go awry.

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.

[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 49 points 4 days ago

It‘s a two sided blade, but I get what you mean.

On one hand monetization is the thing that ruins platforms for me because it invites grifters and even decent people are becoming obsessed with numbers. Most people see content creation only as a career path and not something to do for fun anymore. I find that depressing at times.

On the other hand we currently live in a capitalist world and have to play by those rules to some extend. I learned most of the things I do for a living from Youtube because professionals do Blender tutorials as a side gig or even for a living. There probably wouldn‘t be nearly as much knowledge out there without this motivator. Or at least not in this form that is easy to understand for me. The official Blender documentation usually isn‘t the first place I‘m searching through when I have a problem.

So I see where you‘re coming from but it‘s a fine line between helpful and loathsome.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Cooper8@feddit.online 33 points 4 days ago

Client side support for a tipping link (Koffee, Patreon, crypto wallet, whatever the user's choice is) that is built in to the UI would go a long way.

[-] pedroapero@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

Agree, no need to over-engineer this…

[-] rimu@crust.piefed.social 7 points 4 days ago

Like what peertube has?

[-] Cooper8@feddit.online 5 points 4 days ago

Nice, I dont use Peertube as often as I'd like because I haven't found the right creators for me. Good to know they already have this, should be an example to the rest of the platforms

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] poVoq@slrpnk.net 23 points 4 days ago

I have high hopes for GNU Taler in that regard, as it is in theory super easy to include in any website and makes tipping small sums very feasible.

But in reality it is bogged down by bureocractic hurdles on the banking side, and I am starting to lose a bit of hope due to perpetual delays even after some banks promised to support it as part of an EU grant via Nlnet.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Cris_Color@piefed.world 13 points 4 days ago

Really happy to see this discussion here. Here is no "correct" path here, but is deeply important that the one we choose is intentional and thoughtfully considered by the folks these platforms serve

Both their audience and their contributors.

[-] Olap@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

Keep it away is my strong advice. Having to deal with banks will mean having to deal with regulations. Having to deal with crypto means having to deal with crytpo bros. Having to deal with paywalls is a barrier to entry

The internet was a better place without money touching everything!

[-] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 12 points 4 days ago

I don't have strong feelings either way, but money does touch everything, overtly or not, when it comes to civilisation. Time spent volunteering on Fediverse projects is effectively money spent (at least to some degree), and instances cost time & fees to maintain.

But I guess to argue against myself-- you have to think that without some kind of ongoing responsible oversight, then the worst aspects of capitalism might predictably find a way to screw it all up if left to its own devices. Then again, maybe the scale involved makes that less likely. *shrug*

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (12 replies)

[-] OpticalMoose@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 3 days ago

Thanks for bringing it up. Nobody likes to talk about money in the Fediverse, but it's a fact of life.

I've stopped making Peertube videos lately mainly because I got tired of donating. We've got to come up with a better solution.

[-] Bababasti@feddit.org 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Money being considered to be a “fact of life“ is the sad part here. It’s not a natural system that just is and we cannot change. That doesn’t mean I disagree with you. I‘d be upset not getting a paycheck at the end of this month and rely on money like everyone else because we live in this late stage capitalist hell. But I refuse to accept any monetary system as a natural given, that’s probably all i‘m trying to say.

[-] brachiosaurus@mander.xyz 12 points 4 days ago

A free and direct tip system that doesn't force you to use credit cards would be quite useful

[-] ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

I tried to use a gift certificate to donate to dbzer0 last night. It didn't work because of a zip code field. I just want to look at cat pictures and make a snarky comment every so often without a facist paramilitary kicking in my front door. Fuck me, right?

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 4 days ago

Maybe this is a pipedream but I think mods should be paid for their labor.

[-] EfreetSK@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Maybe it's just nostalgia but in my opinion, with youtube it went all to shit the moment the money started to be involved. Algorithm chasing, advertisement, reactive content, sponsors, quickly generated videos, ... and all the other shit.

So if monetization, then let's try to avoid same mistakes

[-] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I'm not sure if this translates to the content creators. There's many of them whom I really like to watch who do (or did) Youtube as a business model. Tom Scott being one example or Derek Muller (Veritasium). I'm subscribed to many more. Simplicissimus and their yet better second channel (in German). We wouldn't have those without monetization. The platform of course went shit over time. Fortunately my Ad blocker still works and thanks to Sponsorblock my experience is fairly alright... But personally - I'm split on this question. We had quite the amount of entertainment before monetization but I think a large amount of quality content also arrived after that, and because of it. Those people would be working some office job today if it wasn't to Youtube. And I (and the world) would miss out.... On the other hand we got MrBeast, a lot of fake cooking videos...

[-] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 11 points 4 days ago

One seemingly enormous difference is that YT is a for-profit platform owned by a huge business (Google), not a decentralised network run by many small volunteers. FWIW.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 4 days ago

Patreon kinda fits that, but I'm not sure about their open-sourceness

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] inconel@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Artists need exposure before monetization imho, which currently fedi lacks severely. So discoverability is what I suggest as priority to work on.

That said, algorithm free is the draw of fedi as well and I personally don't want my feed filled with excessive ad or self promo spam. Getting the right middle ground will be tricky.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] moonshadow@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

Where'd my other comment go? Editorial censorship takes this from "a really bad idea" to a super fucked up attempt at poisoning this beautiful place with the worship of wealth

[-] somerandomperson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 days ago

Then don't post in the fedi.
Because you ain't doing that.

[-] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 3 days ago

Damn. It took me 3 paragraphs to say that. Good job.

[-] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 6 points 4 days ago

If Fediverse software starts encouraging monetization, I don't think the userbase will even maintain the current strength.

[-] astro_ray@piefed.social 8 points 4 days ago

After seeing your post on akkoma, I think I understand your point even better.
I want to support artists and would definitely buy music on fedi. I would rather just watch hobbyist make videos for peertube and especially for loops. But if it means that it would help the platform stay afloat I am way more open to the idea of monetization beyond just donations.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

If you allow artists to display their work in various communities along with the ability to post links in their profiles, but you restrict actual posts to disallow self-promotion, it's the best of both worlds, IMO.

In other words, if you can't include self-promotion in your community posts, but everyone knows you have the links in your profile, it attracts less grifters and keeps the feed clean, while allowing anyone interested to contact a poster directly or ask them promotional questions via DMs.

That said, hosting a full-fledged marketplace is not a good idea, IMO. There are laws and banks involved, which mean lawyers and taxes, and volunteer management does not work for that. There are already marketplaces that do that well, and allowing artists to post their own links of choice in their profiles will let them steer actual business to other platforms, while keeping the fediverse for display, review, share and critique. My opinion, anyway.

load more comments