[matheusmoreira]

> Said attention has an inherent value.

Yes, and it belongs to us. It's not theirs to sell to the highest bidder.

> Running any website costs money, doubly so for video playback.

> Products do not spawn in with their presence known to the general population.

Not our problem. Business needs do not excuse it. Let all those so called innovators find a way to make it without an attention economy. Let them go bankrupt if they can't.

[x-complexity]

> Yes, and it belongs to us. It's not theirs to sell to the highest bidder.

Your attention belongs to you, until you give it to someone else.

The videographer has the right to sell sponsorships on their videos in exchange the attention they've attracted. It is also their right to do so.

> Not our problem. Business needs do not excuse it. Let all those so called innovators find a way to make it without an attention economy. Let them go bankrupt if they can't.

Your logic has already been tried: It's called Netflix. And it was overtaken by YouTube.

YouTube has been the wellspring for indie videographers because they have a platform that could (a) handle the video hosting for them for free, where (b) they could post their experiments on without an upfront cost & where an audience can be found because the platform's free.

Your idea seeks upfront payment, which increases the risk cost dramatically from 0 to a fixed value. One-shot experiments with 0 funds are killed under your scheme.

To seek their bankruptcy is nothing short of a fetishistic desire for your ideals to trample on others your your own gloating. Go back to the DVD era.

[matheusmoreira]

> The videographer has the right to sell sponsorships on their videos in exchange the attention they've attracted.

As is my right to use uBlock Origin and Sponsor Block to automatically block and skip every single one of those segments. Won't be long until we have AI powered ad blocking that can edit ads out of video streams in real time.

We decide what we pay attention to. Making videos is not a license to dupe us into viewing advertising noise. Baiting us with some interesting topic only to switch to commercial nonsense is just rude, and that's the most charitable interpretation I can offer.

> YouTube has been the wellspring for indie videographers

Because of ads and surveillance capitalism. Those are the root causes of everything that is wrong with the web today. Blocking those will reduce their returns on investment, thereby fixing the web.

> One-shot experiments with 0 funds are killed under your scheme.

Nah. Only the money motivated people will leave. People have been creating things just for the joy of it since the dawn of humanity. Those humans with intrinsic motivation are the ones I really care about. Not these insipid profit driven "content creators".