I disagree with that. I think the web is monetizing video at an appropriate rate, considering most video itself is essentially worthless.

That video content is costly to produce, and kills bandwidth indiscriminately, does not mean video is valuable. Just because there’s a high bar for video to exist, doesn’t mean that cost should get passed on to consumers.

Most video is non-essential, and consumers get to be picky about where their disposable income goes. Video needs to be redeeming to the viewer, whatever their tastes may be, and whose fault is it that the surplus of junk content exists?

> I think the web is monetizing video at an appropriate rate, considering most video itself is essentially worthless.

Um, I think you are confusing cause and effect.

Isn't worthless video exactly the problem that subsidizing video delivery caused?

If you have to pay even a penny to put your video on the web, most video disappears and suddenly the quality skyrockets.

I'm not sure how YouTubes current existence given the past decade or so isn't a huge antitrust violation. They've run the platform at a massive loss, subsidized by their other business ventures to make it impossible for anyone to create a competitor. I can't imagine that if you propose to a VC that you need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on building infrastructure that you will then need to run at a loss potentially for decades before hoping to see any profit it would go well.

"boardroom backscratch" that's the phrase I've always wanted to use but never knew it. Thx!