> Take YouTube for example. How much of their current content do you think would exist if they didn't share ad revenue with creators?
> perhaps 80% of the highest quality content isn't getting created right now.<p>I might just be cynical and jaded at this point, but I disagree with the premise that content creators should create content for money. I don't mean it in a "information wants to be free" way, but take tiktok for example - the vast majority of content (or at least, the content I see) is created for free just because the creator wanted to make something and share it.<p>Some of the worst content I've seen on the internet on the other hand (ads, ads thinly disguised as reviews, or people doing stupid things for the views) have been done of course, only to make money off getting paid for the views.<p>I'm not saying I have a solution for this, but I do think the model of creating content explicitly for driving views to make money is not the right approach.
I don't see anything about how this payout occurs. Do you proactively reach out to creators, or is this the same as Brave's revenue "sharing", where you have to cash-out in crypto?
<i>Yep: Google alternative that shares revenue with creators – by Ahrefs</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31614518</a> - June 2022 (217 comments)