The only reason you even have ad revenue is because the platform is in a state that allows the general public to use it.

Yes, these things are hassles but on youtube you have access to an audience of billions, youtube eats the entire infrastructure costs and manages virtually everything for you.

What do you get on peer tube, 500 views and laggy 480p videos, and no advertisement revenue at all?

I agree with you, and I have in mind a pretty decent solution worth exploring if I can generate the capital to throw at it. It involves separating the ad experience from the videos being consumed. You can still work out targeted deals, but the gist is that the advertiser generally has no control over which videos are seen before and after their ads and have no incentive to find out.

That's how it used to be, then people on social media such as Twitter started reporting things like "why is this Bounty ad next to a controversial figure like Pewdiepie". That's when companies paying for ads started to care and pulled funding.

Right, so the idea is to separate the two experiences, like I said.

Look, at some level it's kinda irrational, but it also doesn't matter when the demands are made by the people that pay you. "Advertiser friendly content" is a real thing.

Although this has been attempted before and was eventually reversed (as other posters have pointed out), it is probably worth your time to investigate and possibly prototype. It may not be a model that dominates the market, but you might be able to find your niche.

Thank you.

One thing people don't understand is that while Clorox might not want their ads next to a video about guns, they still want their ads to reach me. If 100% of my consumed content involves guns, there is a compromise in some capacity which Clorox is willing to make. The aim of the model is to make it such that this compromise is fair and clearly separates sponsored content and consumed content so that there is no connection between the two. This is accomplished in many ways.

If this is something that interests you, I'm happy to discuss my model in a private setting.

You can't separate the two experiences. What the poster was saying is that it was already tried. They were already separated.

And then advertisers realized that having your ads displayed on video content that is damaging to your company's image is generally Really Really Bad for PR. No company is going to sign on for your platform if they can't control where and how their ads are shown.

Try thinking outside of the box before criticizing an approach you don't even understand. There is no reason why the ad needs to be displayed next to the video content and no reason it can't be displayed in a content-agnostic fashion.

I don't want to go into the details of my revenue model but it's sound and has undergone multiple refinements. I don't need you to explain PR to me. I've done my research. I've read Crystalizing Public Opinion by the man himself, Edward Bernays. I am going to venture out and say that I know more about this subject than you and you should reverse your thrusters.

You can say you know more about this subject than I do, and that might be right. But that doesn't mean you'll find success, especially with that attitude. Plus your idea of 'content-agnostic' ads don't work because by existing on the same page and site, it's viewed as an endorsement. If it's not because of the video itself, then it'll be because of the videos that your site hosts. That's why people have gone after advertisers whom had ads on sites such as Breitbart. The alternative is ads which are purely browser-based and if that's your revenue model, then you were already beaten there by Brave.

But no, I won't 'reverse my thrusters'. You want me to change my opinion, then prove me wrong. Otherwise all you have is your word, and words are meaningless.

> But that doesn't mean you'll find success, especially with that attitude.

Lol. You're the one with the negative attitude. You don't know anything about my model and you're just playing devil's advocate. I never claimed it would be successful, I just said it was pretty decent and was worth exploring.

You're being a serious negative nancy. I don't need to change your opinion, and I don't need to prove you wrong, because your statements are empty and deflective and there is no real substance or argument other than "it won't work because I can't imagine a platform other than the ones I have already seen".

And ironically you say my words are meaningless. I've been conservative with my speech, making no hard claims, and you're throwing out whatever spice you can think of. I'm talking from a position reached by years of research, and you're talking straight from your ass.

You can continue to be this way, it's not in my interest to convert you or explain my model any further. Now I suggest you end this over-critical tirade before you cross the line of civility and I have to report you. Good bye.

Meanwhile, PeerTube doesn’t have monitization of any kind. And if they ever do, it will have to somehow contend with the same sort of advertising pressure that got Google, the world’s largest company, to forgo a good slice of revenue.

One of the keys to the revenue model, a version of which I am test-driving with a sister product I'm actively developing, is that the venture must be non-profit and have a strong charter.