During the inception of image algorithms all the engineers started to use a playboy model.

Decades ago ago there was a series of videos of girls teaching calculus. For example they had a girl lay down on her back and then described how to use integrals to determine the area of her boobs.

Naked News

oh yeah, only way Im browsing youtube is with a vpn and incognito on

lol

Wheeler Walker Jr. released music out there.

1 million users is success.

It also pays bellow the average wage

I mean how many of those ad views translates into someone buying something?

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.

Probably just below the cost to buy a thousand views.

CPM for a STEM video.

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.

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!

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.

There is a word for it: enshittification

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.

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

I agree... but somehow I don't think you meant to say this

Where then? What’s free with a shot at getting views/revenue?

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.

She's literally a public figure posting for money. You can see her name below. Obviously the person who censored it doesn't understand the topics of her content.

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.

Someone did the math and estimated YouTube would cost $2bn in cloud costs (i.e. no creator payments) if hosted on AWS.

If they've never paid taxes then they must never have turned a profit.

Checkmate.

That has been true for a while. Ever since "the adpocalypse". I'm surprised you missed it because it felt like every YouTube creator was complaining about it for an entire year ( which I'm not really against, I just don't give a shit about YouTube inside baseball).

That's why every video now has " brought to you by... Whatever" in the middle of it.

A $1 CPM (per thousand impressions) is actually pretty good for a platform like Pornhub where I assume most people are logged out/incognito etc. on an adult content.

If YouTube is really only paying out $0.34 CPM to that creator, that is atrocious. They must be getting like 20% rev share.

I'm just imagining a world where YouTube is so shit and pays so poorly that most content creators move to pornhub, and it becomes a respectable place to go to learn stuff and watch video essays, more than porn

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.

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.

Just the tips, eh?

Her PornHub has 2,594,161 views right now.

Edit: 2,594,162