They're not. No one asked OP to use peertube. This is software for people who want to share videos. Coming in and declaring you won't use it because you can't make money from your videos should just get an "okay?" Interjecting into a FOSS space and complaining they are not paying you is beyond bizarre. Doubling down when people basically say "actually I'm specifically looking for non-commercial groups, so your absence is appreciated" is crazy.
If you want to make money in something, you're not part of the group who doesn't. There's already a giant platform for you. Why would you say hobbyists are entitled?
The issue he has is he wants to find/communicate with hobbyists, and instead runs into people trying to turn it into a profession. It becomes difficult to find like-minded people when every topic is infected by grifters. Injecting money into a leisure activity will inevitably ruin it and the people participating.
The reason why is on full display here: this entire thread has been derailed by people asking how you're supposed to make money with it, denigrating people who "only" have 100 subscribers (imagine 100 people regularly coming to watch you give a talk or demo or performance out of pure interest!), etc.
In a hobby or leisure space, appreciation or encouragement alone is valuable. Monetizing leisure leads to some crazy ideas. Like completely turning the perspective around: "content creators" think what they're doing is interesting enough that not only will I give them my attention, but that I should somehow compensate them for it? Crazy.
> The issue he has is he wants to find/communicate with hobbyists, and instead runs into people trying to turn it into a profession.
To me that is in line with my original quote. He actively seeks work people put in while haivng an issue with them getting compensated for it.
Whether YT has monetization or not people's incentives are the same. Imagine that YT has no ads, people would put stuff behind paywalls or upsell aggressively.
> denigrating people who "only" have 100 subscribers (imagine 100 people regularly coming to watch you give a talk or demo or performance out of pure interest!), etc
I would never denigrate those people. But if you work hard enough and put in enough work that people watch 4000 hours of your videos in last year, and eventually you want to quit the job you don't like and just get paid by creating for people like that guy, and that guy says "monetization is the problem I have", it's kind of sociopathic. Drawing this line between work and hobby, like you have to do stuff you hate for money and god forbid you start getting paid for doing stuff you like
My assertion is that he's not actively seeking work people put in; he's actively seeking people. The sociopathic thing is exactly reducing people, interests, and interactions into something transactional like this. He's looking for people who don't think that way. So putting things behind paywalls is fine; it makes those people disappear. Upselling remains annoying. It recasts every interaction into a sales pitch.
What that guy is telling OP is that he's not creating for him. OP came into a thread about a platform for freely sharing video, not for getting a job in the entertainment industry. There's already at least 3 major platforms for that, and the monetization is what that user said he doesn't like about youtube [in contrast to this]. It's like commenting in a thread about a package repo complaining that the problem with FOSS communities is lack of monetization. If you want a job in the field, go somewhere where people are looking for help and will pay you to do things for them. Not places where people are having fun so you can try to upsell.
And yes there should be a line between work and hobby. Hobbies are things you do for you. Work is something someone else wants and pays you to do. You are doing it for them. e.g. with making software, work should not be fun. It should be boring. Making it "fun" is just a pain for your colleagues. Conversely, leisure should be fun. Making it into a money-making endeavor makes it unenjoyable for everyone else. There is supposed to be a line.
> The sociopathic thing is exactly reducing people, interests, and interactions into something transactional like this
Saying that people need to have money to survive and that it's great to be getting paid for doing something they love (while making stuff that's free for you to watch) is sociopathic and reducing them?
> OP came into a thread about a platform for freely sharing video, not for getting a job in the entertainment industry
Yes. But it's pretty silly to not think it will be compared to youtube. It's even called PeerTube, pretty obviously. youtube became so popular to inspire peertube in the first place thanks to its monetization. So it's a very obvious thing to bring up.
> And yes there should be a line between work and hobby. Hobbies are things you do for you. Work is something someone else wants and pays you to do
You keep that masochistic distinction if you want but please don't impose it on others
Yes, requiring payment to do things you love is sociopathic. It's the same as "keeping score" in a relationship. It will only make you and your counterparty grow to hate each other. This is exactly the "they just want something for free" dynamic. One or both parties thinks the other is an entitled freeloader and one or both thinks the other is an entitled dickhead.
You take payment to do things that are acceptable to you, that the other person needs, and that you are capable of. You don't tie emotions into it. Certainly not strong ones.
Of course they compare themselves to youtube, but via contrast. Specifically, that you control your own platform and (out of the box) there's no ad ecosystem. For people who want to share videos without making people watch ads, that's perfect. The entire point is that it's not youtube. And if you want "not youtube but still full of shills and grifters" there's also Instagram and TikTok. The "monetized 'content'" space is very well served already.
Masochism is turning the things you love into a grind, recontextualizing them such that they're now always carrying a question of economic utility (and therefore optimization) as you do them so that you can no longer just enjoy them for what they are.
'if you work hard enough and put in enough work that people watch 4000 hours of your videos in last year, and eventually you want to quit the job you don't like and just get paid by creating for people like that guy, and that guy says "monetization is the problem I have", it's kind of sociopathic. Drawing this line between work and hobby, like you have to do stuff you hate for money and god forbid you start getting paid for doing stuff you like' did you read that part?
'But it's pretty silly to not think it will be compared to youtube. It's even called PeerTube, pretty obviously. youtube became so popular to inspire peertube in the first place thanks to its monetization. So it's a very obvious thing to bring up.' or that
it makes it clear what I think about people being able to get paid for their work and 'they would not otherwise make them' is bullshit i never said. they would never make the videos that in recent years made youtube the place it is nowadays, but they would make some other stuff.
> they would never make the videos that in recent years made youtube the place it is nowadays, but they would make some other stuff.
Yes, that's exactly it. What I'm saying is I'm fine with not having the videos that in recent years made youtube the place it is nowadays, and I'm fine with the other stuff.
The place it is nowadays is the place you go to watch videos. You literally wrote "as youtube watcher".
The existence of ad bucks is what made people create better and better productions, which attracted more viewers, and that is why youtube became the default place for people like you to go for video stuff. You can't just remove that feature and have the rest.
I'm sure you didn't talk to every single creator whose video you watch and ask them if they did it without hoping for some YT ad bucks and whether they would have done it if there were no YT bucks. You can say they would but don't kid yourself we live in a capitalism and most people don't have enough money
> Youtube itself is responsible for an entire generation expecting the videos to be free.
True, it did create this weird world. But then think about all of the amazing high production value work we enjoy because someone once did it for fun, got paid and then decided to keep doing it and make a nice living off it while you still don't pay them a cent. Sadly it's probably impossible for YT to have that original atmosphere.
You are a self described youtube watcher. Unless you pay for youtube premium, you expect free content literally every time you open youtube. By definition.
> All the people who want to make money from YouTube can just stop making stuff if money is what's motivating them.
I don't know how old are you but after certain age things are not so black and white. We don't live in severance where we can slave away at a denigrating unethical job we hate just to earn money. People prefer to do something they love AND earn money from it. If they don't do the latter they starve and go bankrupt. Guess what then they can't provide free content for you.
As a video watcher, the main issue I have with YouTube is the presence of monetization.