The sad economics of being famous on the internet
I don&#x27;t mean to sound heartless, but can anyone explain how the economics of these new Internet-enabled distribution channels are &quot;sad&quot;? Don&#x27;t get me wrong, I&#x27;ve found poverty and lack of economic opportunity to be very sad, for far longer than it&#x27;s been fashionable to do so, but that&#x27;s not really what the article&#x27;s talking about.<p>&gt; Every other week, Tonjes, 29, debates getting another job but wonders how she’d have the time to keep up her three channels on top of a 9-to-5.<p>Maybe keep up two channels? or one? Before the Internet, this story would have been a person stuck in a crappy job who doesn&#x27;t get to indulge their passion for music _at all_, since they would get _zero_ dollars for it (barring the enormously low chance of getting a major-label record deal, an option which still technically exists). The low barriers to entry for YouTube&#x2F;Instagram&#x2F;etc are the other side of the coin for lower income per subscriber than traditional gated channels like getting signed at a record company.<p>TL;DR: Someone being unable to afford their groceries is what&#x27;s actually sad, but this isn&#x27;t an article about poverty and lack of a safety net. Low-barrier, low-gatekeeper distribution channels like YT or Instagram _mitigate_ this problem, not create it. Calling the economics of being Internet-famous sad is missing the point by a mile.