Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway48476 | Hacker News Reader

And by "community" they mean business model.

Google pulling the rug on the open web after years of benefitting from it is a shitty move. Then to inject corporate propaganda into alternative frontends after making the default experience miserable, even not considering the ads, is shittier still.

Where and how do the content creators fit into this?

Most creators only have a small percentage of revenue from ads. A lot of the creators I like are demonetized anyways. Superchats and paid comments are way more lucrative than ads.

Google is in the malvertising business. Creators are not.

this is just not true, even the huge creators mention that it's usually 30-50% of their revenue.

This is likely skewed by the creators I follow. I imagine there's a lot of youtube poop child audience content that's near 100% ad revenue.

Personally speaking, if low quality "creators" suffer I won't feel bad.

Presumably many would choose to block Invidious, and many would not. It sounds like none of them get a choice in the matter, which is why it's not crazy to question whether community is used as a euphemism in this case.

> Presumably many would choose to block Invidious, and many would not.

Is this something a creator can do on their own today? How many of them are aware of Invidious?

Negative, and unknown.

"Community of shareholders"

Gotta love that newspeak!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com