Skip to main content


[news] Did you know that there are now more than 40 plugins available for #PeerTube instance administrators? To support the installation of these plugins, we have just created a new page in which we will often highlight a plugin selection.

➡️ https://joinpeertube.org/en/news#plugins-selection-1

reshared this

Unknown parent

Tio
Looking forward for the WebMonetization plugin that can be a game changer:

https://community.webmonetization.org/miles/web-monetization-in-peertube-grant-report-1-2feh


Exactly! It will be a game changer like it was for youtube. Can't wait for people to be incentivized to produce more and more content, regardless of the quality, just so that they can make more money. Imagine how awesome peertube will then be: videos you can't watch because you are too poor; videos that are clickbaity so that people pay to watch them. Can't wait! :)
Unknown parent

Tio
Not blaming anyone, especially Peertube who just provides a great software. But pointing out to something that not many seem to consider. I simply care about everyone having access to knowledge, this is what I've been doing for the past 10+ years (providing free digital stuff for everyone - documentaries, books, tools).
Unknown parent

Tio
Alex, listen. I am on this Web-Peertube 3.0. I make videos about science - they take a long time to make. 1 month for 1 well made video. I charge for it, so only those who pay can watch it. Now I am trapped in a very messed-up game: one one hand my science videos (important ones) cannot reach as many people because I am blocking those who cannot pay; and second, since it takes me so long to make 1 video then I'll probably charge even more for one video, making it less and less accessible for others (the more expensive the less accessible).

And third: if all works well, and I start making money, then I know that the faster I produce videos and the more of them, the more money I make. So I'll probably make less scientific videos, more clickbaity, release them faster, so I pay for that car I want to buy. It is a very very bad incentive.

So, if I could run a simulation of a popular Peertube instance that is pay-per-view, I am sure I will see a Peertube instance full of crappy videos. Same as youtube....
Unknown parent

Tio
WebMonetization -> make people actually read/watch the content and "stream" microdonations while doing so.
This is from the website that made the monetization plugin:
Monetization, providing ad-free viewing for those who pay, and enabling exclusive content which requires payment.
So not only you hide content behind paywall, and trigger the avalanche I was talking above with the bad incentive, but as I see they plan to insert ads and the payment to be an option to remove the ads. Same as Youtube. No difference. Don't expect to produce different outcomes.
Unknown parent

Tio
If this is a way to more easily donate to others then that's great. But if people "donate" in order to get something else in return (like perks) then that's a slippery slope and is, of course, not a donation anymore, but a purchase.
Unknown parent

Tio
I understand that you may use it as you wish. That's great. But am not sure if I you understood my point that as soon as you provide your videos to others ONLY if they give you something back (money or whatever), then that's exactly what ruined youtube for example. So I would hate to see that happening to peertube instances.
Unknown parent

Tio
Unknown parent

Tio
Unknown parent

Tio
Another way to put it.

Why are ads bad when it comes to incentivize creators to click bait?
It is because they want more people to click their videos, since more views = more money.

Then how is it different when you hide your videos behind paywalls? Isn't it the same story, where more views (viewers) = more money? So isn't it the same incentive to click bait? To get more people to subscribe to your paid model?
Unknown parent

Tio
You have an incentive to increase your income even with donations 😜
Much less. You do not directly sell anything. Plus, you don't hide your content from those who cannot afford to pay.
In fact, the main problem of those who make journalism without big sponsors but asking for donations is the tendency to sensationalism.
You have any examples?

Donations are a volunteer act, not forced. Paywalls are still a volunteer act, but without knowing exactly what you pay for. This is why is easier to scam people when they don't even see your content before paying for it.

Big sponsors tend to have a big influence over the organization they sponsor. See Linux with Microsoft and the like. See any scientific paper that comes with a red flag if it is ever sponsored by someone.
Unknown parent

Tio
And btw, I am not saying donations are a great solution, but I am saying it is much better than anything I've seen, from many perspectives. Less incentive for creators to lie and click bait and make poor content, but also more free content since it is not behind a paywall.