I’ve been thinking a lot recently about PeerTube, Loops, Bandwagon, and other platforms in the Fediverse that are geared around artists. I might get flamed for this, and you’re welcome to disagree, but I think the network is in dire need of having support for commerce.

Not “Big Capitalism” commerce, but the ability for people to buy and sell things, support projects, and commission their favorite creators to keep making more stuff.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 10 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Hey, um .... I read your article. Or I tried to.
It lost me at the point where I need to give money to somebody else. So, basically right at the start.

To be more specific, your article starts of lamenting that its not convenient enough for me to give money to someone ("content creators", a bullshit term if I've ever heard one) on these federated platforms. "this is a bit of a problem" There's no examination of whether we should be doing this. Its taken as a given that monetization is a positive goal.

So ... I really tried to get there and understand your point, but there's this vast gulf between us.
Why would it be bad if nobody makes any money off the fediverse?
That sounds good to me.

[–] megrania@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I don't agree, really ... that'd limit the Fediverse to hobbyists.

It's completely legitimate to look for income & exposure as a creator, whether you're making music, visual art, or document your process making physical objects. Corporate platforms, as crappy as they might be, provide a path to that, and in many ways created viable path for creators to do what they like full-time. Not saying that it's perfect or easy. But the Fediverse is currently no alternative at all ...

Currently, restricting yourself to the Fediverse as an artist unfortunately means that you're taking quite a hit in terms of exposure you can get. As long as that's the case, and people even defend it, then we really can't complain that the Fediverse isn't attractive for a larger amount of people, and centralized platforms will always have the bigger draw.

I try to avoid corporate platforms as much as I can, but as a consumer I often feel starved of content. I haven't found any interesting woodworking channels on PeerTube, or guitar repair channels, or whatever else I enjoy watching to wind down.

And as a creator, well ... it's not my source of income, but I sure would like it to be. And if I ever decide to make that step, I'm pretty sure that I's have to make amends to my "no corporate platforms" approach. The Fediverse doesn't feed you.

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Ok. I can follow this line of reasoning.
If you want to avoid corporate platforms, fediverse doesn't provide as viable an alternative as one might like.
This is clear, and makes sense. Thanks for the succinct explanation. At least I see some sense here now.

I'm not entirely sure that it matters.
Like, when was it decided that the 'making money' bit needed to be imported from YouTube?

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 8 hours ago

The "making money" bit doesn't need to be imported, necessarily. It's not an end unto itself. But if we want a large amount of high-quality content, while society is capitalistic, then it does. Because high-quality content takes a lot of time to produce, and not many people can afford to do it as a hobby. The scenario you're describing means that who have the skills to do it could do it while making money on YouTube or Patreon, or they could do it for free on the fediverse while not making money (or making money in a more conventional job, creating the stuff that we love them for only in their spare time—limiting the quantity they can produce).

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)