> What replaces it? People aren't going to host content for free.
Perhaps. But I for one would like to try this just to see what that Internet would look like. I think it would be a refreshing change from the Internet we currently have.
Well, we had it, back in the late 90's. You wanted to put a video on the internet for people to see? You put it on your site, and paid the appropriate fee for the space and the bandwidth.
So people wanted to get paid for the content, if nothing more than to cover the hosting costs, and LEPT at the chance to put their crap in some walled garden that handled the monetization. If we had it to do all over again, we'd wind up right back at the same spot.
The only thing that will fix this situation is to force YouTube to charge for subscriptions at a price point that gets rid of the advertising, like Netflix. And then YT can share THAT money with creators. And this goes for every other "free" service where the product is YOU, like Facebook and Twitter.
I still can't wrap my head around how advertising is so valuable that the entire US economy seems to be based on it now. I just can't fathom there's apparently this strong of a correlation between annoying ad campaigns and consumer spending, but it MUST exist, ipso facto.
Perhaps. But I for one would like to try this just to see what that Internet would look like. I think it would be a refreshing change from the Internet we currently have.