Hacker News Reader

Imho content is content and the creators get more when I pay, and I also don’t see ads. It’s win win and cheaper then other streaming platforms so I don’t see it being out of line cost wise.

55% to creators 45% to platform to host and stream while also supporting a ton of creators who have little to no views.

Seems a better deal then Netflix ect with more ability to control where your dollar goes

View on HN

Yea, i think i'd agree if i saw the revenue split or if they helped me understand what went to consumers. I'm not invested enough to research this (which isn't an excuse, just saying i'm not interested), so as a basic consumer my assumption is that the revenue i put into something like Patreon is far better than Youtube.

I say that primarily because of experience. For example i subscribe to Spotify, and the revenue split there is atrocious and often a point of debate between platforms. Maybe YT is better, but it's not clear to me from the outside if that's true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com