Item — HN Reader

> It makes me wonder if a sort of "basic income for Internet creators" would work. Instead of individuals trying to optimize their content for maximum income, it would instead work like this: if the group determines that you make great content, you get a small stipend monthly. There are no other expectations or optimization requirements, merely that you continue making the content

I think you invented Patreon.

2 comments

Except Patreon banned a lot of Ukranian vloggers and did not ban Russian propaganda.

For example, WarGonzo is still on it (just checked) and Ayder Muzhdabayev and Serhii Sternenko are not. Check https://youtu.be/91US4DNcBGw as well.

This made me delete my Patreon.

Yeah, but Patreon is still beholden to the individual-market optimizer model. I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content.

Maybe a collective Patreon-like "guild" would be a starting point.

The politics of who does vs doesn't make the cut sounds difficult to manage.

I think an individualist model makes sense, or barring that, a group Patreon (i.e. a music label instead of an individual band).

It would be difficult to manage, but not impossible. Certainly if you have a strong organizational culture and know what your org values. Like universities, for example. At least in the past.

Otherwise you’re just dependent on the popularity of the market, which I don’t think is a great thing all of the time. There are a lot of things I’d enjoy reading or writing that have zero monetary value and thus are strongly incentivized against existing.

You just discovered what a corporation is. Corporations have "boards" that decide what is "good" and can invest in those things to develop them and sell them or give them away with approval from this board. The corporation receives funding from customers and investors to keep going.

I guess? But clearly this corporate model isn’t really being used to make the kind of content people wish existed.

The main roadblock for content creators is the distribution channels. Content creators require attention. Attention is the hardest thing to obtain. TikTok broke through and stole lots of attention away from YouTube. Content creators aren't able to grow a massive following of their own because of the discoverability crisis on the Internet. Google and many other platforms are putting up high wall prisons (I refuse to called them "walled gardens") to hold on to user attention as tightly as possible.

What people wish is still aiming quite low.

These "privileged" netzen who were able to shoot web for free because they had other sources of income could also be accused of knowing things.

We now have [for example] content creators who build their own workshop and make an effort to figure out something interesting. This is different from people who already have a workshop where they do practical things. The later will teach you stuff that is applicable, useful and/or marketable. It is deeply baked into their soul.

Either you're inventing reddit-but-each-upvote-is-worth-a-fraction-of-a-cent, or there is some sort of select professional board who is responsible for deciding what is "good content" on behalf of the public. Sort of like national public arts grants, or maybe public broadcasters like the BBC.

Right? Or are you imagining some third model

I’m imagining something like this: a rich guy who likes art takes a million dollars and makes an organization that funds people writing about art, paying them $1,000 a month. (Exact amounts don’t matter.)

He sets up a list of values and rules that are broad enough to not be limiting and specific enough to get what he wants.

He personally picks the first 100 people involved, and then all further decision making involves him + those 100 people + new entrants. The specific setup could be debated but the basic idea is just that the group funds things that match its values.

You've just invented a newspaper.

I don’t know why people are obsessed with this “you just invented” line. Ok; and? Then I’m suggesting a newspaper or a think tank or a nonprofit specifically aimed at creating better content online. How is the corporate form actually that relevant to the main idea?

I also don’t think these are the same thing, because a newspaper is rarely explicitly not concerned with the market.

This already happens, somewhat in richer circles.

Frank Zappa has a quote about this very thing actually.

the thing about "basic income" is that it's basic. It's unconditional. It's a an efficient way for a government to guarantee a minimum quality of life for its citizens. As soon as you tie it to producing "good content" or something, the whole thing becomes about meeting that criteria.

Ad views are a gameable target. So are upvotes. So is board approval.

Yep the whole thing would quickly devolve into arguments over what is good or whether some irrelevant personal idiosyncracy of the creator should prohibit him getting paid for his otherwise "good" content.

There are groups you can fund on Patreon that have a bunch of creators under them. Second Wind which is spin off old Escapist staff is one.

The issue with these groups if there is a popular person in them, they will generally leave the group and start their own thing because they can get more money. So you will still have issues where top tier creators want all money and don't want to "subsidize" smaller creators.

That sounds like an artist's network. A lot of podcasts have networks, there are some webcomic networks, etc.

The problem with networks, much like with insurance networks (but kind of backwards), is making sure that the superstars that hit it big and bring in a disproportionate amount of the money don't spin off into a solo career to keep more of the money themselves, while also not making them feel trapped and resentful in a contract jail.

I think that the content from the “old web” that people miss isn’t really superstar quality. It’s more like an extensive nerdy guide on a niche topic. So I wouldn’t anticipate this being a huge issue.

You can donate to non-profit museums or art galleries where you live, and they will use that money to fund artists.

edit: or you can donate to a non-profit newspaper, or think tank, or any other type of institution that deals with this.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but the question to be asked shouldn't be "why doesn't this exist". It should be "why aren't more people aware of and using this?"

> I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content

Why does this group need to be different from the general Youtube (insert any platform here) audience that votes with their views/likes/subscribes ?

What am I missing?

Because the YouTuber watcher votes for MrBeast, not for the niche intellectual content that populated the early web.

The point is to decouple quality content creation from the ad-matrix and fund it in other ways.

> I'm talking about a group, a collective, that deliberately funds stuff that is merely good content

This is a newspaper or think tank. It can be donor, ad or reader (i.e. paywall) supported.