The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trusty said:
Talk about being pedantic. Of course you can compare them. They both have people making money off the platform.
Click to expand...

It isn't being pedantic.

On one, you make money directly from the owner of the website (is they give you the money).

Twitter doesn't give anyone money and you don't make money from Twitter in remotely the same way.
 
Trusty said:
Youtube aren't taking a cut? Really? Explain
Click to expand...

Youtube, has a contract with advertisers and gets paid for running adverts, in return to promote the platform and reward those bringing most traffic they share some of this based on an algorithm with those who generate the volume of traffic.
Some limited amount of consumers pay to avoid the adverts, specifically what you tube does with this I don't know, assume its all the same pot. In theory more traffic = more revenue for the platform.

Twitter, charges the content creators (now) in order to generate income. It also charges advertisers via contract but does not share this (it may in the future).
No consumers pay anything, well unless they are dumb since paying as a consumer grants no benefit in regards consumption really.

TLDR;
Consumers, youtube optional payment, twitter zero payment
Creators, youtube some revenue based on clicks, twitter currently zero
Platform, youtube revenue from consumers and advertisers, twitter revenue from creators and advertisers.
The only real similarity is that both platforms get money from advertisers.
 
Trusty said:
Creators do not get 100% of the money. Youtube take a cut. This is getting tiresome. People will find any nonsense to divert away from the salient point.
Click to expand...

Employees do not get 100% of the money. Their employer takes a cut. This is getting tiresome. You will find any way to avoid the question, which is how much do you pay your employer to go to work?
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Youtube, has a contract with advertisers and gets paid for running adverts, in return to promote the platform and reward those bringing most traffic they share some of this based on an algorithm with those who generate the volume of traffic.
Some limited amount of consumers pay to avoid the adverts, specifically what you tube does with this I don't know, assume its all the same pot. In theory more traffic = more revenue for the platform.

Twitter, charges the content creators (now) in order to generate income. It also charges advertisers via contract but does not share this (it may in the future).
No consumers pay anything, well unless they are dumb since paying as a consumer grants no benefit in regards consumption really.

TLDR;
Consumers, youtube optional payment, twitter zero payment
Creators, youtube some revenue based on clicks, twitter currently zero
Platform, youtube revenue from consumers and advertisers, twitter revenue from creators and advertisers.
The only real similarity is that both platforms get money from advertisers.
Click to expand...

Youtube take 45% of the ad revenue
30% of "superchat" donation money
and 30% from channel membership
Click to expand...

Yeah?

45% of the money from advertisers to the creators that draw in the consumer isnt taking a cut?
30% of superchat donation isn't taking a cut?
30% of channel membership?
 
Youtube content has to be advertiser friendly, Elon wants Twitter to not be held hostage by advertisers because his goal is to create a platform where you can largely speak freely. That's why a subscription model works better for Twitter in the way Elon wishes to run it. People seem completely oblivious to this.
 
I see Twitter is promoting the dogecoin now. If you have a block on thats the picture you get.

Just in time for.

www.reuters.com

Elon Musk seeks to end $258 billion Dogecoin lawsuit

Elon Musk asked a U.S. judge on Friday to throw out a $258 billion racketeering lawsuit accusing him of running a pyramid scheme to support the cryptocurrency Dogecoin.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...

NEW YORK, March 31 (Reuters) - Elon Musk asked a U.S. judge on Friday to throw out a $258 billion racketeering lawsuit accusing him of running a pyramid scheme to support the cryptocurrency Dogecoin.

In an evening filing in Manhattan federal court, lawyers for Musk and his electric car company Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) called the lawsuit by Dogecoin investors a "fanciful work of fiction" over Musk's "innocuous and often silly tweets" about Dogecoin.

The lawyers said the investors never explained how Musk intended to defraud anyone or what risks he concealed, and that his statements such as "Dogecoin Rulz" and "no highs, no lows, only Doge" were too vague to support a fraud claim.

"There is nothing unlawful about tweeting words of support for, or funny pictures about, a legitimate cryptocurrency that continues to hold a market cap of nearly $10 billion," Musk's lawyers said. "This court should put a stop to plaintiffs' fantasy and dismiss the complaint."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
Yeah?

45% of the money from advertisers to the creators that draw in the consumer isnt taking a cut?
30% of superchat donation isn't taking a cut?
30% of channel membership?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the meaning of taking a cut.

When you take a cut of something you take a share of something that belongs to the other person such as a processing fee of handling fee of whatever.
Typically this would be seen where an agency agreement is in force, eg ebay who are acting as your agent when you sell something. They handle the transaction for you and take a cut of the proceeds to cover their costs and make profit. Its always your money not theirs.

The money that Youtube give to creators is not taking a cut, its not a specific agreement between the advertiser and the content creator. Its a scheme thats run by google adsense and what adverts that will be run over a youtubers channel is not in their control.
Google adsense applies what it thinks could be adverts that the person watching the channel may like (ie targetting) and than applies a sharing routine with you tube taking a fixed percentage and the rest being shared by the creators.
 
Trusty said:
no you've just got a whole bunch of children that want to believe that these platforms don't take money away from creators in some form.
Click to expand...

YouTube provides a way for the public to (effectively) pay to consume a creators content and takes a cut of the revenue generated. The size of that cut might be high or low in people's view but there is basically a service provided by YouTube that allows creators to show and sell their content. Without YouTube most of the content creators wouldn't get paid the same amount, if at all.

Twitter provides a way for creators to let people know they can consume their content elsewhere so the creator can get paid. Twitter not being there does not end a creator's revenue stream, it just means one less advertising channel.
 
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I don't think you understand the meaning of taking a cut.

When you take a cut of something you take a share of something that belongs to the other person such as a processing fee of handling fee of whatever.
Typically this would be seen where an agency agreement is in force, eg ebay who are acting as your agent when you sell something. They handle the transaction for you and take a cut of the proceeds to cover their costs and make profit. Its always your money not theirs.

The money that Youtube give to creators is not taking a cut, its not a specific agreement between the advertiser and the content creator. Its a scheme thats run by google adsense and what adverts that will be run over a youtubers channel is not in their control.
Google adsense applies what it thinks could be adverts that the person watching the channel may like (ie targetting) and than applies a sharing routine with you tube taking a fixed percentage and the rest being shared by the creators.
Click to expand...
Totally agree this is the simple point I think is being missed when comparing the two, youtube shares it's money with creators, money that the youtube platform generates and collects around all content not just that which is monetised, so I guess some here would argue that in those cases youtube are taking 100% of the creators money? Twitter wants money from it's creators and is not offering them any of share of it's ever dwindling advertising money
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I don't think you understand the meaning of taking a cut.

When you take a cut of something you take a share of something that belongs to the other person such as a processing fee of handling fee of whatever.
Typically this would be seen where an agency agreement is in force, eg ebay who are acting as your agent when you sell something. They handle the transaction for you and take a cut of the proceeds to cover their costs and make profit. Its always your money not theirs.

The money that Youtube give to creators is not taking a cut, its not a specific agreement between the advertiser and the content creator. Its a scheme thats run by google adsense and what adverts that will be run over a youtubers channel is not in their control.
Google adsense applies what it thinks could be adverts that the person watching the channel may like (ie targetting) and than applies a sharing routine with you tube taking a fixed percentage and the rest being shared by the creators.
Click to expand...

Taking 30% of superchat donations isnt taking a cut?
You can argue all you like about the technicalities of 'taking a cut' if you want. I suppose it is useful if you want to divert attention away from the fact the platform moves money into it's own pocket for profit and maintenance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom