Stating an untrue statement as fact and hoping your opposite number will debate it, thus tacitly accepting it, is an extremely low quality argumentative technique, sitting somewhere between "responding to tone" and "ad hominum" on the hierarchy of arguments[1].

You strike me as a standup chap who would not resort to such techniques, so I'm sure you'll now be willing to explain to me how you came to such a conclusion, so I can help dispel your misconception?

[1] http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html

You're calling for a minimum income for them or suggesting they just do it as a side project(supplemented with a regular income).

The fact is a lot of great content is expensive to produce.

Ah, I see the problem. Because I have suggested that content can be created as side projects or could be encouraged by a basic minimum income, you have made an inference that I do not understand the costs involved in making good content.

I'm afraid to inform you that the facts you have stated do not contain sufficient information to make such an inference. You cannot know with any certainty based on these facts alone whether I understand the costs involved in making good content.

Saying they should do it for free or an unsustainable price(they need side jobs) does actually say that you don't understand the cost of good content.

You complain about the cost of your attention while suggesting people spend their time building free stuff for you.