Agreed, I should make it clear that I do appreciate that the post itself was made. I don't think it's whining. I just think the view of "many followers" = "should at least make ends meet" is a bit optimistic.

But then again I have the same view that I criticize when it comes to OpenSSL not getting enough money (how can this possibly be it's so valuable for so many people) so maybe I just don't get youtubing for a living. It's the same argument...mmmm...food for thought :)

It's interesting that you brought up OpenSSL. I think open-source software and YouTubers both share the exact same age-old problem of monetization - how do we ensure content creators get compensated for a service whose value lies in its innovation, and whose marginal cost is essentially 0?

This problem used to be solved with patents and copyrights, but that tends to screw over the majority content consumers in favour of the minority content creators. The ad- and donation-supported model is a step in the right direction. I particularly like the Kickstarter-backed model that certain open-source projects (see Django Rest Framework) use, but I'm not sure if that's a viable long-term solution.

>how do we ensure content creators get compensated for a service whose value lies in its innovation, and whose marginal cost is essentially 0?

I think the first step is to break the current distribution models for content. Essentially content creators relinquish their rights over their content which includes the ability to monetize the content. The social networks make billions on content created by their users...my answer, the content creators who have established followers, start hosting/publishing their content on their own websites and only use the social networks to redirect traffic to their own websites they control and they can monetize.