Because the advertising business is highly centralized. Getting sponsorships is not as easy as you think.

An example: YouTube pays content producers per click, so to speak, a ridiculously small amount, but in total, with billions of clicks, a crazy amount. The money to finance this comes largely from advertising revenue (also Google’s main business model). They are the Gatekeepers so to speak.

But the content producers can’t live off this because Google keeps most of it for itself. They do give people the opportunity to find sponsors themselves tho - and that’s how people actually make the most money. But you have to find them for yourself or through intermediaries (that’s an industry in itself). This is only realistic if you have sufficient reach (subscribers in the example). And that, in turn, is only possible if you have already invested hundreds of hours in the production of content (you can’t make a living if you don’t get paid for that).

So I think it would be best if the platforms themselves were powerful enough in terms of reach to be able to negotiate well with advertisers. But not as powerful as Google, for example, who can afford to pay content producers a pittance because - unlike small platforms - they are not dependent on them.

I think we should be realistic. Content costs money because it requires a lot of effort. It’s naïve to think that content would just be created because people feel like posting something. If the Fediverse is to compete with companies like meta, this is only possible if there are opportunities for content creators to earn money. That should be self-evident, but it obviously isn’t here.

I’m not saying it’s necessary, but it is if the Fediverse is to have mainstream appeal.

Simply because the absolute majority of people are out and about where everyone is. And that’s where the content is. That’s the point: if you want good content, it costs money. It’s not just corporations that make a living from it.

What I want to say is this: The Fediverse could provide fairer conditions for the people who produce content. That makes sense and is necessary because the Internet lives from that.

I just don’t understand why people here don’t want to realize that work has to be paid for. That’s really strange.

Well, in that regard not too much changed, I think. Record labels always mostly pushed music and artists with mass appeal. They still do but have lost a lot of their power to companies like Spotify, Apple and Google (YouTube). But these players do pretty much the same with their algorithms. So I don’t think that popular music has changed too much. There are still influential companies that can pretty much dictate what people listen to. I still don’t think it has become much worse, since back in the day you weren’t even able to produce an album without a record deal because studio time, distribution and all that was so expensive. Today you can produce everything yourself in your bedroom. Sure, it’s unlikely that you will be very successful marketing your record - but at least it’s somewhat possible.

I don’t think music has gotten any worse. However, it is much easier and cheaper to produce music today: you don’t have to be able to play an instrument and professional production is possible with comparatively inexpensive software on any standard computer. This and also the changes in distribution (no more need for sound carriers, …) have probably led to a lot more music being produced today than in the past. Of course, this does not mean that music has become better as a result, but it also does not mean that it has become worse. You just have to find the gems among the admittedly gigantic amount of junk.

I think the so-called KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are a major problem of our time, because they are often defined incorrectly or misunderstood. All too often, decision-makers seem to think that the pure number of followers, for example, or engagement metrics such as likes would indicate that an account or post is successful. However, this is often not the case when other important metrics are taken into account. In e-commerce, for example, a large number of followers or high engagement figures in themselves mean nothing at all: it is not uncommon for e-commerce companies to invest a lot of money in social media management and for the KPIs of their accounts to rise accordingly - but still not sell anything via this channel (that means that the investment is not worth it, of course, because the costs are disproportionate to the sales generated; the ROI is often not good at all). I think a similar situation can be assumed for many science accounts on Mastodon, for example. Although the number of followers maybe not very high here because there are less active useres, the quality of comments can still be a lot higher. But unfortunately this cannot be quantified, or at least not easily. I therefore think that everyone should first think about what they want to achieve with their social media accounts. It then makes sense to define suitable KPIs instead of being impressed by what can be considered an indicator of success elsewhere and in a completely different context.

It depends, I would say. If the aliens ask unpleasant questions, they would probably be talked about and reported on continuously. Like:

Alien Ambassador: “Why are you destroying your habitat with your eyes open? We don’t understand. Your scientists have proven beyond doubt that you will become extinct if you don’t fundamentally change your ways. Why don’t you care at all?”

Continuous headlines:

“Aliens want to ban humanity from traveling”

“Space fascists want to raise gas prices”

“Go home job-stealing aliens: How outer world wokeness is destroying {any given country}”

…

You can find a lot of stuff over at hugging face - open source stuff as well. This for example for background removal.

If the Lemmy admins can’t make a living from it, that’s the Lemmy community’s fault.

Glad you like it. This style is pretty much cyberpunk. A sub-genere of science fiction that is quite popular since the late 70s.

What appeals court? I thought Trump had to post $464 million in order to even appeal. How did he manage that?

Seriously?!?

I think that’s too generalized. Marketing finances the Internet just as it has always financed print media (including the good, even inversitgative journalism).

“It’s going to be huge, folks, huge…These particles, they’re like the employees of the future, always on the job…So, in conclusion, nuclear power, it’s fantastic, it’s tremendous, it’s going to make America great again.” Gold!