Comment

Comment by wutbrodo

I don't mean to sound heartless, but can anyone explain how the economics of these new Internet-enabled distribution channels are "sad"? Don't get me wrong, I've found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it's been fashionable to do so, but that's not really what the article's talking about.

> Every other week, Tonjes, 29, debates getting another job but wonders how she’d have the time to keep up her three channels on top of a 9-to-5.

Maybe keep up two channels? or one? Before the Internet, this story would have been a person stuck in a crappy job who doesn't get to indulge their passion for music _at all_, since they would get _zero_ dollars for it (barring the enormously low chance of getting a major-label record deal, an option which still technically exists). The low barriers to entry for YouTube/Instagram/etc are the other side of the coin for lower income per subscriber than traditional gated channels like getting signed at a record company.

TL;DR: Someone being unable to afford their groceries is what's actually sad, but this isn't an article about poverty and lack of a safety net. Low-barrier, low-gatekeeper distribution channels like YT or Instagram _mitigate_ this problem, not create it. Calling the economics of being Internet-famous sad is missing the point by a mile.

parent wutbrodo 11 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton