Hacker News Reader

The real problem is that YouTube built a model where the platform, not the creators, controls the money flow. They could have charged creators directly for hosting and left monetisation up to them, but by inserting themselves as the middleman, they gained leverage and authority over content itself. The "cost of hosting" is just the technical excuse for such centralisation.

View on HN

> They could have charged creators directly for hosting and left monetization up to them

A platform could do that today. I doubt such a platform would've beat YouTube even in the early 2000s. Creators can get almost the same experience by hosting their own site on a VPS.

There are lots of platforms where people pay for their distribution, but they're not as successful.

The main problem is that smaller creators couldn't afford the true cost of hosting and indexing to the level that YT provides.

As someone who's spent many years building streaming platforms, the lack of understanding of the economics and this kind of massive over simplification is really sad.

There's no conspiracy with YT, they've built a 'wonder of the world' which has a very low barrier to entry and which has paid out billions to creators.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com