reading between the lines, it seems like the OP's idea is basically a form of UBI that allows creatives to engage in content creation regardless of the market-fit and commercial viability of the content.
While I like the principal of a UBI, people not living in poverty, it strikes me that OP's reasoning is one of the reasons why I see issues with a UBI. Who is going to want to work a factory/service job when you can live comfortably pumping out low quality videos that average 10 views?
Maybe it would drive income equality and better remuneration for those roles. Maybe we'd simply lose a lot of productivity. Who knows?
That’s the point of UBI. Currently, the wages for those roles are low because they were born to poorer parents. But if given the opportunity not to, then the wages for those roles would go up so that there aren’t so low simply because people lost the ovarian lottery.
no, more like state-subsidised highbrow-culture-focused TV channel, which will have to be heavily curated and hard to get into, but which will pay reasonable money to the lucky ones who managed to get commissioned
UBI would provide peanuts for everyone and devalue the content even more. Everybody and the fleas on the backs of their dogs will be streaming and influencing.
