[armoredkitten]

To me, there's no evidence in any of this that would indicate the creators are misinformed or being scammed. In reality, they know their primary source of revenue is coming from Youtube, and it is a frequent complaint, especially for content creators who do anything marginally political or controversial, that they are demonetized or hit with copyright strikes (even in clear cases of fair use) and have to deal with the faceless Google behemoth trying to reverse these automated decisions. The end result of all this is that their revenue stream is unstable, and they are reminded of it frequently.

To me, the fact that many of them clearly find Nebula a more suitable arrangement for them is still an indicator to me that, if I want to support the creators, Nebula is a better way to do that. Obviously, you can make your own decision on that, and sure, if you feel lied to, I can appreciate being upset about that. But maybe most of these content creators are less concerned with the ownership (they get 0% stake in Google, after all) and more concerned with the profit sharing arrangement. If so, I'm still happy to support them in that.

[jszymborski]

I never said they were scammed, but I was indeed misled by dishonest marketing, and frankly I think creators are also to blame for spouting lies about ownership.

I supported Nebula because I think a creator's co-op is a beautiful project. I was willing to compromise on the co-op idea when I thought it was a 50:50 ownership structure but this is nothing close to equitable in my mind.

I'll spend the money I save on Nebula on monthly donations to creators. I look forward to supporting a creators co-op if a promising one is ever made.

[tredre3]

> I'll spend the money I save on Nebula on monthly donations to creators.

You'll split your 3-6 dollars between multiple people? So that after fees they'll each receive a dime?