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

171–180 of 234 posts

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

#171

Post by jsonne »

commoner wrote: post #137
paulnechifor wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the poin…

An American can exercise their government-protected right to free speech on their own website. This right does not apply to someone else's website, since it would be infringing on the website owner's property rights. Freedom of speech doesn't grant the speaker the right to occupy someone else's private property.

If those websites wish to police speech to this degree then they can reclassify themselves as publishers and accept all the legal burdens that come with it. At least then they'd be intellectually honest.

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

#172

Post by zzzcpan »

acolytic wrote: post #149
Deimorz wrote: post #11

I don't understand why people are acting like this is ridiculous and will obviously fail. 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that people ar…

Disclaimer: I'm working on a platform that allows you to contribute to open source as a whole and which distributes your money proportionally to how much you care about various projects. I'm thinking of taking 30% as well. I think people are just getting hung up on the number without thinking deeper on what it costs to make things sustainable. 5% of the 500 million Patreon claims to be able to process is 25 million.…

Common, as a VC-backed company Patreon doesn't even pursue a sustainable business model. Most of those 74 employees are for anything, but sustainability. When they first started they had like a few people and pretty much the same service as they do today.

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

#174

Post by deelowe »

randunel wrote: post #139
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

> 38% to the Government: $.93 (of the remaining $2.45) If the invoice you give your customer says "$5.00", isn't the tax taken from that? That's how things work in Europe, the gross income is taxed.

The US taxes sales twice. You get taxed on the sale itself, which is the scenario you describe. Then you get taxed on your income at the end of the year, which is the "38% marginal" rate being described here.

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

#175

Post by AlexandrB »

vntok wrote: post #42
liability wrote: post #4

This seems like the sort of thing that could only move forward at a company like Facebook. If this were proposed as an independent business, it would be laughed out of the room. Of course Facebook has enough loyal users that they might actually be able to make this work..

Why would it be laughed out of the room? FYI, here's the current top comment in this very thread: > 30% is the same cut that Apple and Google take for everything that goes through their app stores, including all in-app purchases. It's the same cut that Steam takes. It's the same cut that YouTube takes for channel membership. Twitch takes an even larger cut: 50% from subscriptions. It's extremely well-established that…

Because a new company would have nothing to offer for that 30% that Patreon doesn't have. Facebook has an audience.

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

#176

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #96

I remember when reasonably smart cellphones first came out. You could hook them up over USB and change things like ringtones or backgrounds. It was fun. Then manufacturers and cell phone companies started realizing the money train they were on. They made billions by selling this same crap to people who didn't know how or have the time to customize their own phone. As it turns out, billions of dollars tends to get peo…

> As it turns out, billions of dollars tends to get people's attention.

As Sir Tony Hoare lamented:

> At first I hoped that such a technically unsound project would collapse but I soon realized it was doomed to success. Almost anything in software can be implmented, sold, and even used given enough determination. There is nothing a mere scientist can say that will stand against the flood of a hundred million dollars.

I get the feeling that a lot of modern products are boondoggles on the merits but "doomed to success" because FAANG et. al. put them on a pedestal and the media is all too happy to go along with corporate marketing narratives if it grabs eyeballs (see e.g. the ridiculous amount of hype around foldable phones, which are sort of neat but hardly a revolutionary advance).

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

#177

Post by epc »

gottebp wrote: post #160
vetinari wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do not worry; all these companies are private enterprises, so in US, freedom of speech doesn't apply anyway. Patreon/Paypal/Visa/Mastercard/Twitter/Facebook will drop you like a hot potato, once you publish something mildly controversial.

What distinguishes a Twitter or Facebook from a phone company? At scale these platforms have become vital to public communication in the same way as certain utilities. Perhaps it would be better if businesses facilitating speech communication had to classify as a common carrier or utility. As a carrier they would get exemption from speech liability and in exchange democracy -- which needs free public discourse -- can…

Common carrier status for phone companies in the U.S. was the price they had to pay for the monopolies they received to run telephone lines on public property or easements on private property, probably dating to earlier with telegraph companies.

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

#179

Post by badpun »

sametmax wrote: post #164
badpun wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. It is not freedom of speech, if the consequence of speach is death. 2. If the country considers freedom of speech a right, shouldn’t the country make serious attempts to protect it? It does so for other human rights.

Free speech is a general society convention, omnipotence doesn't exist. You have the right to not be raped as well, doesn't mean we can prevent all of them. What right do you know that can be guaranteed all the time, under any circonstance ?

My point is that the state is not doing enough to protect freedom of speech. Obviously, no 100% protection is ever possible.

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

#180

Post by briandear »

paulnechifor wrote: post #126
morganvachon wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the poin…

> What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?

It’s your right to talk, but that doesn’t compel anyone else to broadcast it. Freedom of speech doesn’t require that anyone he made to listen.

Post reply on HN