• Dagnet@lemmy.worldEnglish
    37·
    13 days ago

    Doesn’t seem like she is doing this but watching a coding tutorial with a topless girl presenting it would be much more fun. I wonder if there is a market for this

    • rumschlumpel@feddit.orgEnglish
      15·
      12 days ago

      Is that an average/median OnlyFans creator, or one of the ones who are considered successful?

      Edit: Oh, that’s actually the creator from the post. TBH that seems like really intimate information, in a different way than whatever she’s probably doing on OnlyFans.

    • Atelopus-zeteki@fedia.io
      8·
      13 days ago

      Hope not, that would be a crushing blow! Since I generally boycott YT, I checked out Zara Dar’s What is a Neural Network. It’s a good overview, and well presented. Ah, a look there’s a part 2. It would be great if she could hit 1M views on ProhNub, as a result of this post. Only 207K over the past year, with 2K updoots.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.ukEnglish
      13·
      12 days ago

      Also why we hiding the name of the YouTuber? Presumably they actually want people to find their content otherwise they wouldn’t have uploaded it.

      This self-censoring epidemic is getting stupid.

    • leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      8·
      12 days ago

      The fourth stage is to run away with the money, leaving stockholders and investors with a failed company in their hands which they can’t bring back from the dead because both users and business partners hate it.

    • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      71·
      12 days ago

      stage 5: revolution - overthrow the oppressive corporate system; nationalize all monopolies, split them into different smaller companies, give those companies to the workers who will collectivize them. seriously!

  • kbal@fedia.io
    12·
    13 days ago

    WTF I had no idea the CPM had gotten that low. $1 per thousand views for however many ads are in each video is practically nothing.

    • HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zipEnglish
      5·
      13 days ago

      The more resistant to clicking ads we get the less each ad is worth to the corporate ad buyer and the more ads the services want to jam in to get their profits.

      The part I struggle to understand is why corporate ad buyers are okay with the fraud that the big tech companies seemingly routinely get caught on. Famous example being pivot to video on Facebook where they just cooked the books to sell the concept.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.mlEnglish
    8·
    13 days ago

    I know there are gamer girls on sites like Fansly and OnlyFans that stream their gaming sessions in the same way they would on Twitch. I wonder what the engagement and income is for them on those sites versus Twitch or YouTube.

    EDIT: I just watched Zara Dar’s PornHub video on Loss Functions. Her delivery is a tad robotic but the content is informative.

  • DylanMc6 [any, any]@lemmy.mlEnglish
    91·
    12 days ago

    i really wish someone would makes a great youtube alternative that pays $1-5 cpm, but DOESN’T shut down like blip or vidme. it DOESN’T have to be a cooprative, but it should. seriously!

    • thevoidzero@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      12 days ago

      Storing videos, and streaming them without latency is a huge problem. Specifically if you also have to process for different resolutions and such for different devices.

      Edit: I don’t know how true it is now, but in the past YouTube would have local servers and specific agreements with ISPs for higher bandwidth for them in many countries.

      • T156@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        12 days ago

        It’s also quite expensive. YouTube only broke even for over a decade after Google got their hands on it, and Google can afford to host the servers, and manage distribution themselves.

        A new player would find it much harder in today’s landscape. When YouTube was made, it had the advantage that of not having that many viable competitors. That’s no longer the case today.

    • sobchak@programming.devEnglish
      3·
      12 days ago

      I tend to prefer creators who do the donation model (e.g. Patreon). The advertisement and sponsorship models create bad incentives. The donation model can too, but it’s preferable, IMO.

  • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    13 days ago

    Hence articles like this bother me:

    https://www.axios.com/2025/12/13/joy-reid-leaving-corporate-media

    YouTube, Instagram and TikTok…

    That’s the trap. These mega platforms feel like “liberating” creative outlets, but they take basically all the ad revenue and hand out scraps; the absolute bare minimum to keep creators around. And that ratio shrinks as the monopoly grows.

    Yet creators, even journalists trained to sniff out profiteering, go in blind to that.

    And yes, I get it. “Just don’t use them,” is much harder said than done.

    …But they could be a little more critical of their platform, like this lady.

    • PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.spaceEnglish
      5·
      13 days ago

      It’s just hype. They parade around people that “made it” with their revenue programs. The 99 or so % that never make any, or even lose, money in the process are never shown.
      A close friend of mine invested a 4-figure amount into travels, gadgets and all sorts of stuff to show off… while being unemployed. Had a huge, organic crowd of followers, too, on several platforms. Tried everything, but never saw a single cent in return.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        13 days ago

        Yeah.

        Hence most that “make it” do it through external links, like sponsors, OnlyFans, merch, blog/newsletter subscriptions and such.

        Yet the platforms are trying to squash that. Just the other day, I witnessed the official YouTube Android TV app skip a video’s sponsor.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      3·
      13 days ago

      “Just don’t use them,” is much harder said than done.

      I agree… but somehow I don’t think you meant to say this

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        13 days ago

        That’s what I’m saying.

        You have to use YouTube, Tiktok, whatever. But at least be a little more self aware and vocal of the platform’s pitfalls.

        And to be clear, some content creators already are. But it needs to be the majority. They need to remind every single viewer “this place is a trap, a bloodsucking leech, and we’re here because we have no choice.” Just subtly enough to avoid deranking, of course.

    • KombatWombat@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      12 days ago

      They are liberating creative outlets in the sense that they offer a platform and tools for creative expression (barring some ToS rules) for free. You can post a creative video that may be seen by thousands without needing to sell ownership to some company. They play ads to pay for its associated costs and yes, to turn a profit, while giving a small portion to the creators as an additional incentive. But they are not intended to replace regular income in a meaningful way. I have never heard of anyone suggesting that trying to do so is a good idea, including the big name content creators that by exception do manage to earn a living from it.

      If you think it should be a reliable way to make money, I would say you have the unfair expectation for it. I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes. That’s just beyond the scope of what it’s there for.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        12 days ago

        See, this is technically true. But that is not how (say) YouTube presents itself.

        They market professional creators, and algorithmically prioritize them. They set up extensive systems for them. They divert away from external linking, and create systems to explicity keep people withing their ad ecosystem. To regulators, YouTube argues that it’s still that same site to post “creative videos” to, like the cat video site it was a long time ago. Yet in the same breath, they turn around and do everything they can to crowd out professional journalism and media, to promite it across services, even viewing it as their “attention competition.”

        They’re having their cake and eating it.

        Discord’s the same. They depict it as private chat for gamers and friend groups, when it’s really host to larger interest communities, and eating similar sources alive.

        Hence I disagree.

        YouTube is setting the expectation for creators to make money, while arguing exactly what you’re arguing in court. And this:

        I would compare it to complaining that a service that teaches you how to knit is only sufficient for hobbyists and rarely allows one to build a successful company selling clothes.

        This is true! Yet YouTube wouldn’t be caught dead saying it, as it would cost them attention.

        And that’s not okay.