>>782599

(previous bread)

I am hard at work in building new platforms that can scale, are open source, censorship proof, and that do not track or profile you. Advertising is ethical, and will also be able to opt-out if you allow distributed computing tasks to be performed in the background and/or subscription. Professional content creators like YouTube people will be paid more for their content. It's been hard to get the seed capital because the VC's don't want to fund something that they can't control, but I'm going to get it done. We need it, voices should not be censored. Decentralization is the way.

>>783376

Source?

>>783718

No, I'd rather distributed computing tasks such as OCR reading of pages of text that need recognition, not crypto mining though the principle is similar.

Nothing is for free. Services like Twitter/Facebook/Google, they sell your data, both to highly target ads and for all other nefarious purposes.

If you create a platform that is decentralized, there still needs to be a way for it to financially support its operation as well as provide incentive for quality content (such as YouTube does through sharing some of their revenues with content creators). So there has to be a revenue model. Advertising that is "ethical" (i.e. not based on profiling) is one answer. I didn't invent the term ethical advertising, I'm not a fan of ads but it is a way to bring in revenue. Another is decentralized computing tasks. Cryptocurrency mining is not what I have in mind, I'd rather use idle computing power for "useful work" as opposed to hashing algos that cryptos are all about.

The point is to obsolete platforms such as YouTube/Facebook/Twitter/Google, you need to at least meet their quality bar as well as offering something better to users. You can't do it for free. You can do it if you encourage YouTube celebs to migrate because the revenue share is much better for them on a new platform, and if you create a decentralized model that doesn't invade your privacy in return for what is a "free" service.

If you could count on people to pay a subscription fee, that would take care of it right there and you could use some of that money to support the platform and the balance divided to content creators based on their proportion of that user's viewing time. However, subscription models don't usually work out well when there's a supposedly "free" service available.

If I build something, I want it to succeed, not fail because it can't pay for itself. In no way would this generate revenue such as Google, YouTube, etc. They can charge top dollar for ads because they can pinpoint target people because of their tracking. I'd rather charge less, not track people, give more of the revenue to the content creators, but make the service pay for itself and continued development. I consider that far more ethical than the Google way.