Should social media users get paid for the content they create?* If so, how would that work?
Every day, billions of people use social media. And while many people are relatively passive consumers -- scrolling, liking, interacting with friends -- millions of people are actively creating content.
And every year, corporations rake in billions of dollars because of this content. The obvious players own the platforms: Facebook (Instagram), Google (YouTube), TikTok. But the corporations that use the platforms for advertising often make billions as well.
Is it fair that these companies make billions of dollars even though they aren't creating any of the valuable content? Are the services they provide really worth billions of dollars? Are the users really entitled to none of that wealth?
Some would argue that this is simply the free market at work. The companies provide useful services, and users freely give up their time and labor to enjoy them.
But others, who are more critical of capitalism, might smell exploitation. In other words, there is a massive labor force producing valuable content, and they are getting nearly nothing for it. [1] Even those with millions of followers struggle to capitalize on their influence.
Why aren't the people actually creating the content getting a piece of the action?
One reason is that we haven't been demanding it. Well, actually, some people, including Andrew Yang and California Governor Gavin Newsom, have called for big tech companies to share the wealth, like through a "data dividend." But they are focused on the value of data, not content.
And some content creators, including young Black women, still struggle to get even basic recognition for the trends they start, let alone compensation.
There are reasons creators should demand compensation for content.
For one, the quality of today's content is incredible. If you've spent more than 5 minutes scrolling through TikTok you likely appreciate what I mean. People -- and especially young people -- are making truly amazing content. Constantly. Hilarious memes, flawless TikToks, breathtaking Instagram posts, insightful YouTube videos.
Second, this content is valuable. All of this incredible content (and even mediocre content) drives user traffic. And traffic drives advertising revenue for the corporations.
Third, it's real labor. It takes time to produce content. And that content has value. No compensation means unpaid labor. That's unjust. Especially when many of the content creators are from marginalized groups.
So let's pretend we all agree that social media users deserve just compensation for the content they post. How could that actually work?
There are countless ways to imagine a compensation scheme. One that makes sense to me is micro-transactions. Basically, users could get paid by the interaction or view. In other words, you could get paid by the like.
This might turn out to be a tiny fraction of a cent per interaction. So, for many users, it would be a negligible amount. But for others, it could amount to something substantial. The details would need to be worked out so that the compensation seems just to those involved.
Of course, this payment scheme has its problems and potentially leads to issues similar to those in the gig economy (for example, undermining hard-fought worker protections and trapping workers in a precarious existence). And being an influencer is not an easy job. We shouldn't take the risks of underpayment and exploitation lightly.
But for the millions of people currently making content and getting little or nothing for it, the micro-transaction system could be a way to share in the wealth they are creating.
That begs the question: Who would pay?
As I see it, there are at least five options:
1) The advertisers pay. In this model, companies pay based on being tagged. For example, you go on a hike, take a picture at the summit, and tag Patagonia. Then, if Patagonia approves your post, you get credit from Patagonia based on the number of interactions your post gets. Kind of like everyone is an influencer. Of course, this would require that you tag businesses, which might be unappealing to some users. And obviously, there would be ways to game the system.
2) The platform pays. This is profit-sharing with the users. So, a company like Facebook would basically be sharing a percentage of its profits to the people who created the content. Again, this could be based on interactions, likes, views, etc. In fact, this has been tried before, although unsuccessfully.
3) The platform is user-owned. This is the cooperative business model. Users own the business, so they share in the profits. This one certainly has huge barriers, because Google and Facebook aren't likely to go cooperative any time soon. And competing with the big players isn't very realistic. Still, it's a fun idea.
4) The users pay. A subscription-based model. Like Spotify. Users pay a subscription fee (say, ~$10/month), and then the monthly payments would go to the content creators. Actually, the general idea behind Spotify is a pretty useful model. But, importantly, note that many artists are underpaid and exploited because of Spotify's payment formula. Ideally, a fair social media platform would devote much more of the subscription money to paying content creators.
5) A combination of the above ideas. There's no reason these ideas need to be isolated. In fact, two, three, or four could potentially operate on the same platform. And that might be the best bet for ensuring that users get fairly compensated for their creative output.
Of course, it's not all cherries and ice cream. There is criticism of the idea of compensation for social media use. [2] Some people have pointed out issues with getting paid for social media content, like the risks of people gaming the system by creating markets for fake followers and likes, etc. But this already happens, and somehow companies still manage to find legit influencers to pay. Surely, these are not intractable issues. For example, one could imagine a secure validation process that one could opt in to in order to begin receiving payments for content.
The bottom line is this: Social media users deserve compensation for the content they create. They deserve a share of the wealth that is being created. But this won't happen unless we demand it.
*As with much of my other writing, I am grateful to Latrel Powell and Nick Bachman for their insights and perspectives.
[1] I know, I know, there are lots of YouTubers and influencers who make money through sponsors, ads, donations, etc. -- but the vast majority make hardly anything: 97.5% of YouTubers don't make enough money to reach the U.S. poverty line.
[2] For example, this article argues that anything which weakens the "network effect" (a network gaining more value as more people use it) is a bad idea because paying value creators could lead to weakening the network effect. Because, for example, people would game the system and create less desirable interactions. However, this argument overlooks the fact that exploitation of free labor can also go hand-in-hand with increasing the network effect. And that is a serious concern. In other words, the "network effect" is not a useful ethical principle -- it's a description of a pattern.
No comments:
Post a Comment