Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 234 posts

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#111

Post by pluma »

oliwarner wrote: post #103

Steam takes 30%. Apple, Google Play take 30%. Physical stores can eat 60% unless you're selling something that's demonstrably saleable. Those sorts of markups aren't at all weird for access to a market... And that's what it is, as SatvikBeri has already said. People typically don't go to Patreon to find new content. They consume the content elsewhere (YouTube, Facebook, etc) and then go to Patreon. Facebook et al are…

It's a bit more complicated, which is why many content producers still use Patreon even if they want an alternative.

Patreon not only collects money, it also provides a way to assign rewards, define goals and notify patrons (filtered by reward level) of new content.

It's not a publishing platform, but it's not just a payment processor, it's also a kind of marketing platform.

That said, the most appalling part of Facebook's "competitor" is not the 30% rate, it's that their ToS try to pull the same bullshit stunt they try to pull on their social platform: tricking you into believing you owe them perpetual transferable rights to everything you share via their platform. They know this isn't actually enforceable (at least not in all jurisdictions internationally) but they still try to trick people into believing they unknowingly agreed to it and are comfortable exploiting those in jurisdictions where this nonsense works and those who don't know any better.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#112

Post by aikah »

jrockway wrote: post #32
gnicholas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t explain why it needs to stay in effect after you terminate your relationship with them.

Backups. Why commit to reliable destruction of data when you don't have to? Google has a guarantee on when your deleted data disappears from tapes in vaults, and it was something that every engineer at the company had to think about (not to mention a ton of work in actually implementing it). You may wish for Some New Startup with 2 engineers to do it for you, but it's hard, takes time, and nobody actually cares. Look…

> Backups. Why commit to reliable destruction of data when you don't have to?

That argument makes no sense if you're talking about publishing, AKA making something available to the public.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#113

Post by pluma »

jrockway wrote: post #32
gnicholas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn’t explain why it needs to stay in effect after you terminate your relationship with them.

Backups. Why commit to reliable destruction of data when you don't have to? Google has a guarantee on when your deleted data disappears from tapes in vaults, and it was something that every engineer at the company had to think about (not to mention a ton of work in actually implementing it). You may wish for Some New Startup with 2 engineers to do it for you, but it's hard, takes time, and nobody actually cares. Look…

Well thank god the GDPR already killed that old scapegoat (unless your creative content backups are guaranteed 100% PII free).

If this was just about liability, the terms could be much narrower. They're intentionally broad to guarantee the maximum benefit to the platform and allow them to come up with other uses for that data later on.

This is exploitative and only works because of the power imbalance between platforms and individual creators. Even if you follow the idea of the "free marketplace" you'll have to acknowledge that creators have no individual leverage when it comes to platforms with "take it or leave it" ToS.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#114

Post by [deleted] »

speedplane wrote: post #40
jrockway wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backups. Why commit to reliable destruction of data when you don't have to? Google has a guarantee on when your deleted data disappears from tapes in vaults, and it was something that every engineer at the company had to think about (not to mention a ton of work in actually implementing it). You may wish for Some New Startup with 2 engineers to do it for you, but it's hard, takes time, and nobody actually cares. Look…

The issue with facebook is not that they simply hold a copy of your data after your relationship ends, but that they have permission to continue using it. Few content creators would object to Facebook keeping a random copy of their content on a tape drive. It's like a book publisher keeping your a copy of a rejected manuscript in a warehouse somewhere. The real problem is when Facebook uses that content to further th…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#115

Post by ddalex »

rootlocus wrote: post #58
SatvikBeri wrote: post #13

Patreon is selling a service, Facebook is selling access to an audience. Two seemingly similar but vastly different offerings. That's why Facebook can have a lot of crappier versions of other products that are still successful (e.g. Facebook events vs. Meetup.) I doubt they'll be able to get away with the terms as is, but it wouldn't surprise me if they manage to successfully charge significantly more than Patreon an…

> Facebook is selling access to an audience. I remember their promo videos promising access to "millions of people" and "your imagination is the limit". Turns out it isn't feasible to spam all the people in your friends list with all your updates, so Facebook decides who sees which. Want more people to see your posts? Your wallet is the limit.

> access to "millions of people" and "your imagination is the limit". > Want more people to see your posts? Your wallet is the limit.

I'm not seeing anything inconsistent in that position. They didn't promise free access to their audience. The imagination of how much you can spend is indeed the limit.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#116

Post by imtringued »

michaelmrose wrote: post #75
thucydidesofusa wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh, now assume the creator makes $80k/yr and lives in California. Marginal tax rate - ~38%? $5 subscription. 30% to Apple: $1.5 30% to Facebook: $1.05 (of the remaining $3.50) 38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45) Leaving the creator with: $1.52

50% further for housing and 15% for healthcare enjoy your 53 cents.

Rent doesn't increase if you personally earn more money. (only if everyone around you earns more money too.)

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#117

Post by black_puppydog »

vntok wrote: post #38
gnicholas wrote: post #3

How is this a "Patreon killer" at all? In addition to the extra 25% cut, they will also apparently demand IP rights that would continue even after you stop using their service. Are they thinking that people will sign up for this because it gives them instant access to lots of people on FB, and that justifies the higher percentage? I'm guessing that creators will end up having to pay to get exposure, just like brands,…

> By posting content to Patreon you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or prepare derivative works of your content. "Perpetual and irrevocable" means that it continues even after you stop using their service.

With the difference that much of what "happens" on patreon is not actually hosted there, and thus doesn't fall under that clause if I understand this correctly.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#118

Post by leereeves »

morganvachon wrote: post #101
ernesth wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring…

Freedom of speech is a general concept. It's not limited to only government censorship.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#119

Post by badpun »

sametmax wrote: post #83
nspkr wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very careful with this option, as it's based in the EU which means free speech is not considered; that makes it a very dangerous option for podcast and youtube creators, opinion bloggers, etc.

We still have Charlie Hebdo putting drawings of Mahomet on the cover so there is a still a lot of margin. But it's good to stay vigilent.

It's not banned by law, but, especially after what happened to Charlie Hebdo (and it wasn't the first or the last incident like that, however probably most drastic), I'd say people are afraid to publicly say negative things about Islam, because the threat to their lives is very real. So, while we might have freedom of speech written into the laws and the state per se is not taking it away from us, it's also not protecting it enough from extremists who are against it.

Re: Facebook wants up to 30% of fan subscriptions vs Patreon’s 5%

#120

Post by [deleted] »

rjtavares wrote: post #107
yorwba wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That podcaster might be ordered to cease the blasphemy, and if they don't comply their website might be blocked, but I don't think that puts Liberapay at risk if they don't operate as a publishing platform but only handle payments. That woman didn't lose her bank account, did she?

In any case, European countries don't have blasphemy laws (there might be exceptions to this - I know Ireland had it until recently). That case the parent linked is about defamation (calling Muhammed a paedophile), not blasphemy (for example saying Muhammed was not a prophet). EDIT: so I was wrong. See the comments below.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN