But it is also the one that has been making it possible for creatives to become obscenely rich. It's actually only fairly recently, in history, that creatives could become independently successful, without having patrons. I don't know of anyone that has become rich, using Patreon (I could be wrong, though, as it has never really been something that I've paid attention to).
Not sure if the patronage model works for creatives.
It's fascinating to see folks in tech, who are obsessed with becoming rich robber barons, get upset at the prospect of other people getting rich, doing non-tech stuff.
At least in tech, the pot is more evenly distributed and for more types of people. It even contributes to the broader economy as a whole with genuine innovation as opposed to just collecting rent on IP.
In fact, if you look at the behavior of many tech company legal teams, that seems more like what tech corporations do, than individual creatives.
This is the stuff I did in the 1980s, when I was considering making a living at it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40917886
The behavior of music labels is far worse and less valuable to society than the tech industry
The jury's still out on that.
The music industry can't hold a candle to some of the raw destruction that has been wrought by tech.
It's just balanced by a lot of good (and making tech billionaires isn't really what I consider "good").
You’d have a stronger argument if it was at least fair to the artists that it purportedly represents. It’s not.