Socalism is when people who work at a company, own the company, and share in the profits. But not everyone will want to do that. Some will still want to do their own thing. They’d be paid by people (viewers in this case) same as we do now.
Probably not youtube, because in a truly open market with socialist rules, youtube would have fallen with its constant enshittification and be replaced with a more user/creater friendly alternative.
But how would they buy YouTube in the first place? How would Google even be what it is today without rich shareholders pumping in money for decades? Without harvesting and selling user data?
How far do you want to take this? Companies exist. They still would in a socialist economy.
Nobody is talking about a post scarcity world where money doesn’t exist, and nobody hast to work for a living.
But to answer your question they could get loans to fund the beginning, and once they reach critical size they can monotize the same way YouTube does now. Being employee owned doesn’t mean they can’t harvest data or charge subscriptions.
Who and/or what would drive the company to such a size? You think Bill Gates would put all that work in just to give away the entire company? You think Mark Zuckerberg would sit for hours and hours into the night and nonstop code Facebook, just to not own it?
Famous ≠ Making money. But sure, please elaborate how one would do so in a socialist Utopia. Consider me all ears
Socalism is when people who work at a company, own the company, and share in the profits. But not everyone will want to do that. Some will still want to do their own thing. They’d be paid by people (viewers in this case) same as we do now.
Okay, and where would they post their content?
To YouTube still. Which is now owned by all the Google employees.
Probably not youtube, because in a truly open market with socialist rules, youtube would have fallen with its constant enshittification and be replaced with a more user/creater friendly alternative.
In a truly open market with socialist rules, YouTube wouldn’t have enshitified.
But how would they buy YouTube in the first place? How would Google even be what it is today without rich shareholders pumping in money for decades? Without harvesting and selling user data?
How far do you want to take this? Companies exist. They still would in a socialist economy.
Nobody is talking about a post scarcity world where money doesn’t exist, and nobody hast to work for a living.
But to answer your question they could get loans to fund the beginning, and once they reach critical size they can monotize the same way YouTube does now. Being employee owned doesn’t mean they can’t harvest data or charge subscriptions.
Who and/or what would drive the company to such a size? You think Bill Gates would put all that work in just to give away the entire company? You think Mark Zuckerberg would sit for hours and hours into the night and nonstop code Facebook, just to not own it?
Yes. They would own it. Along with the rest of their employees.
Divided how? Does Gates give away half his company when he hires his first employee?