this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
258 points (96.7% liked)

science

26930 readers
677 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

dart board;; science bs

rule #1: be kind

lemmy.world rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I don’t know why this didn’t occur to me sooner. Even if you just use a junk account to like and subscribe it’s the cheaper version of donating.

PBS Terra, for one, has actual climate change news and science. In addition to all the other cool things, and, ofc, PBS kids.

Here’s the list: NOVA PBS official, PBS, PBS Terra, American Experience PBS, Frontline PBS Official, PBS Documentaries, PBS NewsHour, PBS kids, PBS Eons, PBS Origins, PBS SpaceTime.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 21 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

How does that work? Does YT pay out to creators based on the subscriber count alone? I've only ever heard "like and subscribe to help fund this channel" mentioned when the videos are monetized (e.g ads or sponsors).

Or does PBS monetize their videos and uBlock just shields me from that?

Not that I don't want this to be true since it's an easy way to help fund them, but I am curious how (or if) this works.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

On monetized accounts (which PBS is) YT pays out creators based on advertising revenue. The way they calculate that is a complex, proprietary algorithm, but essentially it's based on view count and retention, and skip rate. So subscribing and liking doesn't actually directly help to fund the channel, HOWEVER more subs and likes usually translates to your videos getting pushed to more and more people (based on a totally different, complex proprietary algorithm), which usually leads to more views, and therefore more ad revenue.

I'm pretty sure us ad-blocking users are still technically contributing to the ad revenue, but over time it can affect the results that advertisers are seeing, and therefore could effect the amount of money they are willing to spend on advertising in the niche or demographic that your favorite creators fall into.

Does that all make sense?

[–] athatet@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No. But not because you didn’t explain it well. It’s because the way YouTube does things just actually doesn’t make sense.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] tpyo@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

You explained it just fine with the information available to you. I understood it and I have a hard time understanding the meaning of statements over text

It's not your fault YouTube doesn't share how their algorithms work, so I kinda think the other person was pretty rude in their reply. Could have worded it a lot better

[–] Rod_Orm@piefed.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

More engagement: more changes algorithm push video to recommended fronthome YouTube website

[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

That gets PBS more exposure, sure, and that's great because they put out quality content, but do they get paid for that? I'm genuinely curious here as I know little of how YT pays content creators. I've had a recurring monthly donation going for years now, and I just don't yet understand if/how simply subscribing could replace even a portion of that.

[–] Rod_Orm@piefed.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ads obviously, and people that pay YouTube premium also contributed to monetization but idk how much

[–] arctanthrope@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

as I understand, premium accounts are paid out per-user proportional to which channels they spend the most time watching. so if a user spends 30 minutes watching channel A and 1 hour watching channel B, and doesn't watch anything else, then channel A gets 33% of that user's subscription fee (after YouTube takes their cut), and channel B gets 67%

[–] kieron115@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It's the exposure, which leads to more ad revenue (in theory, without adblockers). YouTube creators live or die based on the algorithm and two of the main things the algorithm looks at is frequency of posting and engagement. Since Google needs metrics to give advertisers some idea of revenue potential, someone liking your video isn't nearly as valuable to the algorithm as someone liking, commenting and subscribing (if not already subscribed obvi). As an example, ElectroBOOM just started making shorts of all his old content because he's in the middle of a big house move and doesnt have time to make regular content which he noticed led the algo to stop recommending his content as much. But as far as just making a junk account and liking every video Google has systems in place to ignore "stale" accounts that don't actually watch the videos. Ultimately what they want is viewers since eyeballs equals ads equals revenue and everything else is just a way of predicting future views.

[–] CannedYeet@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

There's also YouTube Premium which pays creators a cut that's more than they get with the ads. I bet they need to accept ads to get a cut of that.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Each channel needs 1000? subscribers to monetize at all. And then there’s the algorithm. Searches often include items with more not less subscribers, and monetization flows from there.

Your subscribe feeds the channel into the algorithm.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Each channel needs 1000?

500 for first level monetization like members and super chats/thanks/3rd thing

edit: 3rd thing = stickers