On the contrary, I think it is very natural. The environment changed, and thus the deal. There's no clear way to negotiate the terms of the deal. It may be easy to say to just drop off the platform, but we've seen how difficult it can be to destroy a social media platform. Sure, Myspace and Google+ failed, but they didn't have the network base that Facebook and Twitter do which have also fallen into this trap (I'd even add Amazon here for the more general context. Certainly none of these companies are optimizing for the public because there's difference between who their customers are and the public). Network effects are powerful.
So I see complaints like these as attempts to alter the deal and start a coalition. The deal was changed under them, so why do they not have a right to attempt to negotiate? It is quite clear that there is a very large power differential. It's quite clear that unless you're exceptionally famous (which means the alteration is less impactful) that abandoning the platform comes at risking your entire livelihood unless you can garner a large enough coalition. It's like quitting a shitty job without a new job and not knowing who would hire you. Most people are going to stick around and complain __while__ looking for a way out.
But that points at the main question, what was this magical old way of distribution that was somehow pure that's now gone? Mailing lists. Still there. RSS? Still here, Google Reader died (peace be upon it), but the next day others started to grow as its shadow was gone. IRC? Forums?
So maybe the author is really missing the audience? Sure, platforms and powerful interests shape userbases, but it's not like those old sites were run on pure air.
Of course now there's a new possible way to use copyrighted works, and while it's very similar in effect of what human artists can do (and of course sometimes do), there's a very clear difference in scale, economics, control and thus it's natural that politics is involved.
This sounds like another way to say that the environment changed and thus the deal did.
There's still a ton of ads. And it isn't like Meta is making less money. They're just below their all time high[0] and it's not like there was one of the largest global financial crises between these two periods or something. Meta is in the top 10 for market caps and just shy of getting into the trillion dollar club. I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make because I'm not seeing how Meta (or any FAANG) is struggling.
> And there are amazing non-FAANG spaces today like the Fediverse where the author can distribute their work, and the number of users there are easily comparable to the 'old internet' user counts.
Be realistic. We both know that 1) many of the artists are trying to distribute there, 2) that this doesn't prevent their work from being used in ML models since you can still download the material, 3) the audience is substantially smaller and Mastodon is not even close to replacing Twitter.
> platforms and powerful interests shape userbases
Also remember that platforms with large userbases shape users. There's a reason why the classic Silicon Valley Strategy is to run in the red and attempt to establish a (near) monopoly. Because once you have it, you have a lot of power and can make up for all the cash you burned. Or you now have a product to sell: users.
The author, presumably.
> particularly when that value comes at no cost to you?
Who would (has) argued that there is a cost.
> in return for providing a useful service to you (and one you don't have to use if you don't think it's useful).
I think they agree with you, and are making the claim that since they choose not to use the service (considering it exploitative), it is getting increasingly difficult to distribute their work in a way they find ethical.
I'm not sure I agree with their arguments completely, but they aren't really "strange" as you suggest.
Perhaps your artwork has an anti-capitalist message, and you do not want it to appear anywhere near an Ad for the latest beauty cream.
In the early days of the Internet, there were places to promote a webcomic with no commerical interest, like usenet and forums, and it was typical to visit an artist's website directly.
These days, the average new Internet user might not even be aware of the concept that an artist can have their own website, and own the user experience of visitng that website from end to end. Web design in the early 2000s had a lot of creativity and easter eggs built into the experience of navigating the pages themselves.
An artist absolutely has the right to not want to upload their creative work (which takes days and weeks to produce), onto a bland social media site with it's own terms and conditions with regard how that content is treated and monetized.
Places like Instagram are bleak compared to what was pushing creative boundaries of the web in the mid to late 2000s. Sure, there are still fun websites like this but they are difficult to find (what happened to StumbleUpon?)
We’ve forgotten how to appreciate digital artworks.
If you sell your art, then art marketplaces and printers and shipping services all profit from your work, but I don't imagine she's complaining about that. What's the difference? In all of those cases, as with social media, companies are making money from your work in return for providing a useful service to you (and one you don't have to use if you don't think it's useful).