Patreon Considered Harmful

Reader supported media is the most corrupt

All the time we hear worries about how taking advertiser money is going to corrupt some information source. Wikipedia insists on soliciting donations from us to avoid accepting advertiser money for that very reason. And sure, it’s not like there have never been any cases where content producers have let advertiser money affect their independence. All the YouTubers lying their asses off about how yellow tint glasses solved their color-blindness comes to mind. But, for the most part, the interests of advertisers are relatively orthogonal to the content of a media source — and to the extent it does influence content it is generally to push it in a more bland and less controversial direction reducing the dangers of faction and extremism.

On the other hand, we have systems like Patreon where people give creators money explicitly because they like the content (largely meaning agree with it). Nike doesn’t care about the politics of the TV show it advertises on (as long as it’s not so controversial it will tarnish the brand) they’re just paying for eyeballs. People who support podcasts via Patreon are pretty explicitly conditioning support on ideological agreement — and rather than it being taboo to threaten to pull out over a disagreement donating makes people feel they are owed a certain amount of pandering. And this isn’t just theoretical. I’ve listened to multiple podcasts where the hosts felt obligated to either apologize or at least explain to angry supporters why they dared to voice an opinion that had the wrong ideological valence. Worst of all it distributes the most power to the most ideological and extreme readers/listeners.

So it’s super ironic to see substacks, wikipedia and other media asking for reader donations to stay independent. That’s literally the least independent you could be. Take the fucking corporate money Wikipedia, that makes you independent because you’re selling views, not taking money because people like what they read.

Subscription models aren’t quite as bad as Patreon. Since it feels more like just paying for access subscribers tend to have less of a feeling they are owed something and are less likely to feel betrayed if the ‘wrong’ sentiment is voiced. Patreon supporters are largely donating to help spread a message they agree with while subscribers are more just paying for something they want to read == there are hate subsribers but not hate Patreons. Still, the more granular the subscription is and the higher the price the more it risks taking on a Patreon like aspect.

I fear the rise of viewer supported media is a contributing factor in our increasing polarization and the rise of extreme views. If we want to reduce these harmful effects I have a few suggestions.

1. Sell more bundled access. We know from the cable TV case that often everyone benefits when you buy access to a number of outlets in a big bundle and then the money is split between the content producers.

2. Large media companies buying up small independent creators is largely a good thing — especially if they don’t have a particular ideological focus. This is basically for the same reasons as 1 and the fact that you’re subscription isn’t as closely coupled to what any one creator says.

3. Ad support is the best way to guarantee independence so, as annoying as ads are, not turning on ad blockers is a way to support independent media.