What do you mean by direct-to-content-producer? I can’t find it on Google. Are you suggesting the viewers pay the content creator and the content creator pays YouTube for hosting?

Subscription is a reasonable funding method. It’s also reasonably priced. I think the bigger problem is companies that refuse to offer subscriptions, because Facebook knows no one is dumb enough to pay $15-20 a month, but that is what they make off the ads so offering the service for anything less would cause them to lose money. Merely offering the subscription shows users how much Facebook really makes off of them.

YouTube is also very generous with how much they spit revenue with creators. I don’t like that they exist as a monopoly, but at least they aren’t parasites like the other half of the web.

I’m more curious as to what bologna you eat that doesn’t taste like hotdog.

Lol great analogy

Just a friendly reminder: The Stanford Prison Experiment was not an experiment. There was no control group, there wasn’t even proper procedures set up. It was just some professor off his rocker that had a dumb idea, made shit up as he went along, forced the outcome, then publicized the results. People always compare it to Milgram. This idiot can’t hold a candle to Milgram.

And this is of course because youtube actually pays its creators. Youtube is a far more just platform and is nothing like the social media sites that rely on free labour.