• chaorace@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, for one thing it scales more efficiently. If you watch 50 creators, giving Google a 45% cut is more efficient than paying processing fees on $20 split 50 ways. If you want to be truly fair, the logistics become basically impossible without massively increasing your budget. That’s why, when most people opt to give directly, they’re effectively choosing to reward only their most favorite channels while giving nothing to everyone else.

    I don’t necessarily think there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s not objectively superior to Premium, which does fairly distribute the creator’s cut. Google is able to endlessly split your $11 creator’s cut into micro-contributions based on exact watch-time in a way that individuals cannot replicate. Every creator you watch gets their share. Not as much as a direct donation, true, but nobody gets left out and it’s considerably more than they’d get from an ad-watching viewer.

    • ⚡⚡⚡@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      50?

      If I filter out the ones I don’t watch regulary and the ones I don’t want to support for reasons (e.g. German television chanels I need to pay for anyway) and the ones that don’t accept donations, there are maybe 5 left…

      Paypal, Visa, … usually take a cut between 2 und 4%…

      2-4% vs 45%…

      In my case, there’d be no reason to pay Google. Additioanally, I don’t like Google and don’t want to support it.