Hacker News Reader

Comment by nverno | Hacker News Reader

What an odd time to worry about creative work drying up. Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays with every imaginable way to monetize content. YT pays ~$5/1k views, twitch, NFTs, substack, insta, affliations, etc. The barriers to being a creator now are so low that anyone can do it as a hobby, which is fantastic. The author is pining for the very systems that already exist.

View on HN

You're wildin my dude. Every thing you listed exists to leech value from creatives by selling an extremely peaky reward distribution as linear. But especially NFTs holy heck, that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation, the artists are just around to give the illusion of legitimacy.

So are art shops selling paints and brushes in the business of leeching value from artists as well by your estimation? It's easy to look at how wealthy some of these platforms have become and get greedy, but at the same time they've provided artists/creators with historic opportunities.

Distribution is quite different to supplying raw materials or tools. While some of the products mentioned provide some authoring tools, they're attached to a distribution channel that's somewhat controlled by the platform. (Substack being the notable exception, and NFTs being a difference of kind.)

No because they are actually providing value without strings attached, obviously an artist needs tools to perform their art.

I can just stream or upload content all I want for free! No strings attached as far as I can tell

You cant get paid if you upload for free. Kinda undermines the “ Artists and 'creators' are becoming absurdly wealthy nowadays” argument. Theres all kinds of strings when compensation becomes involved.

> that's entirely a vehicle for money laundring and speculation

This statement agrees with my priors, but can you point me to any evidence, even anecdotal if it's reliable?

Agree. Some of these YouTube creators are making absolute FU money. They don't talk about it because if they disclosed how much they made , they would not seem so relatable to their audience. Also, product placement, affiliate offers...tons of ways to make money.

The barrier to being a creator on youtube getting paid is much higher than it was in 2015. The minimums insure most will never make it as google takes 100% of those ads.

Instagram is falling out now. The market is drying up. People want real experiences.

It still basically follows power law distribution. Most are not getting wealthy, only the top 1%. Top 10% maybe make a living.

I think your comment is even more odd (and detached, really) since it’s coming from the assumption that the current system is fair and not curated or incentivised by biased algorithms.

What exactly is the 'current system' though? I referenced a few systems/technologies, which are only a fraction of what is available. My assumption isn't that there is a single system being supervised by a biased algorithm, which is incorrect. Regardless of the fairness of any of these options, though, they provide the monetary incentives necessary to support creators. I imagine the dynamics of any individual business relationships could swing either way, such is life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com