The Real Value of Your Data: How Social Media Makes Billions (and What You Get)

INITIATING DATA TRANSFER... ## The Real Value of Your Data: How Social Media Makes Billions (and What You Get)

Imagine if every "like," share, or post you made on social media had a dollar value attached to it. In a very real sense, it does – just not in your pocket. Social media platforms generate enormous revenue from our content and data, whether we're casual users scrolling feeds or creators uploading videos. Yet the people fueling those platforms often see only a tiny fraction of the wealth (if any at all). This post breaks down how major platforms monetize user engagement, how they compensate content creators (or don't), and the lost profits we all incur by not owning our own content and data. We'll also explore why it's easier than ever to take control by hosting your own site or platform, allowing you to directly reap the benefits of your content and community.

The Billion-Dollar Economy of Your Attention

Every time you spend a few minutes on Facebook or "heart" a photo on Instagram, you're contributing to a vast data-driven economy. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok rely on advertising as their cash cow – and the fuel for those ads is your attention and data. For example, Facebook's average revenue per user (ARPU) reached about $13.12 per quarter globally in late 2023, and a striking $68.44 per user in the U.S. and Canada. That translates to around $275 per year from each North American user's activity being monetized via ads. Instagram (owned by Facebook's parent Meta) similarly raked in $32.4 billion in ad revenue in 2021 – more than even YouTube made that year.

Crucially, regular users see none of that money. In the social media business model, if you're not paying for the product, you are the product. Our personal data (likes, clicks, demographics, interests) is used to target ads, and our collective content and engagement keep others scrolling – which means more ads viewed. The platforms profit immensely from this cycle. Meta's family of apps (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) pulled in $114.9 billion in ad revenue in 2021, while YouTube earned $28.8 billion that same year from ads shown on videos. TikTok – a newer entrant – saw ad revenues soar to an estimated $9–$11 billion in 2022 thanks to its explosive user growth. In short, our collective usage is worth billions to these companies. Yet how much of those billions flow back to the people creating the content and engagement? Let's compare how major platforms monetize content and what they pay (if anything) to content creators:

Platform Monetization vs. Creator Payouts: Who Gets What?

To understand the "real value" of your data and content, we need to look at how different platforms generate revenue and what share creators receive. Below is a comparison of major social platforms – Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and OnlyFans – and their monetization and payout systems:

Annual platform revenues vs. payouts to creators (approximate, early 2020s). "Platform Gross Revenue" is the money the company earned from ads or user payments, while "Payout to Creators" is the portion paid out to content creators. For example, YouTube earned about $28.8 billion from ads in 2021 and paid creators roughly $15 billion (55%). By contrast, Meta (Facebook & Instagram combined) earned about $115 billion in 2021 but paid out around $1 billion or less to creators through bonuses and programs. TikTok's ad revenue (around $10 billion in 2022) far exceeded what it paid creators via its fund (a few hundred million at most). OnlyFans, with a different model, paid creators 80% of the $6.3 billion its users spent in 2023.

YouTube: Sharing Ad Revenue (the 55% Model)

YouTube stands out as a platform that shares a significant portion of ad revenue with those who supply the content. Through the YouTube Partner Program (launched back in 2007), eligible video creators get 55% of the ad revenue generated on their videos, while YouTube keeps 45%. This model has proven quite lucrative for top creators – and for YouTube itself. In 2021, YouTube's advertising grossed $28.8 billion. True to its formula, over the past few years YouTube paid creators roughly 55% of that sum – over $15 billion in 2021 alone – and in total more than $30 billion to creators between 2019 and 2021.

In fact, YouTube openly credits its revenue-sharing model for its success, aligning its incentives with creators: "YouTube is directly aligned with the people who generate the stuff that powers YouTube," as one analysis put it. For creators, YouTube's system means that if you can attract an audience, you have a clear path to earning money. For example, a video with 1 million views can earn several thousand dollars in ad revenue. (Using a typical ad rate of around $5 per 1,000 views, 1 million views would generate roughly $5,000; with a 55% cut, the creator might get about $2,750.) Of course, actual payouts vary by content niche, viewer location, and season – CPMs (ad rates per thousand views) can range from $2–$12 or more depending on the topic.

But the key is that creators get a consistent share of whatever ad money their content brings in. In effect, YouTube treats individual creators almost like business partners, splitting the ad profits. This has enabled many YouTubers to turn content creation into a full-time job or even a media career. It's not entirely a creator's paradise – competition is fierce, and YouTube takes its cut from every ad. Moreover, YouTube only pays if you meet its Partner Program requirements (e.g. a channel needs at least 1,000 subscribers and 4,000 watch-hours to qualify). Ads also don't run on every single view (viewers might skip them, or some videos may be demonetized). Still, by sharing ad revenue at all, YouTube has paid out life-changing sums to popular creators. It's common to hear success stories of YouTubers earning a living from the platform. In 2023, Forbes reported YouTube's top star MrBeast earned an estimated $82 million through his channel and related ventures. Contrast this with what happens on platforms that don't share ad revenue by default…

Instagram and Facebook (Meta): "Exposure Bucks" and Bonus Programs

Facebook and Instagram, both part of Meta Platforms, have built their empires on user-generated content — from your vacation photos to viral meme videos — without initially paying most creators anything. Meta's revenue comes overwhelmingly from advertising space in your feed, Stories, and other content surfaces. In 2021, Meta made $114.9 billion from ads across Facebook, Instagram, and Messenger.

Yet unlike YouTube, those ads aren't typically tied to a specific piece of user content that a creator can earn from. If you scroll Instagram and see a Nike ad "floating" in between posts, or an ad inserted every few posts on Facebook's feed, that revenue goes entirely to Meta's coffers. As Vox succinctly noted: "YouTube gives half its revenue to the people who make its videos. Facebook — despite a $1 billion pledge — doesn't want to do that."

To be fair, Meta has some creator monetization features, but these have been limited and often invite-only. Facebook introduced in-stream ads on longer videos a few years ago (sharing a YouTube-like 55% cut with video creators) and launched Stars (a tipping system) and other monetization for gaming streamers. Instagram similarly experimented with IGTV ads and more recently Reels ads sharing 55% to creators in pilot programs. Both Facebook and Instagram also rolled out bonus programs – essentially Meta set aside pools of money to reward creators for content that hits certain engagement goals. In 2021, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta would pay out $1 billion by the end of 2022 to creators on Facebook and Instagram.

This included bonuses for making Reels (Meta's answer to TikTok), payments for reaching milestones, and other incentives. The catch? These bonuses were temporary and not scaled to Meta's revenue. In fact, Meta "couldn't afford" to keep some of them going – a telling phrase used by Instagram's chief, Adam Mosseri. By early 2023, Meta shut down the Reels Play bonus program that had been paying Instagram creators for viral short videos. After splashing some cash to lure content in the TikTok era, Meta pulled back.

The vast majority of everyday Instagram users and influencers have no direct income from the platform for their posts. Creators on Instagram typically rely on off-platform monetization – sponsored posts, brand deals, affiliate marketing, or directing followers to merch stores and subscription services – rather than getting a paycheck from Instagram itself. Facebook is similar. While some video creators with large followings earn money from Facebook videos (via in-stream ad share or Stars tips), most people posting on Facebook do so with no expectation of payment. Facebook's philosophy has historically been that the reward is the exposure and engagement you get, not a revenue cut.

Internally, Mark Zuckerberg has taken the stance that Facebook content-makers shouldn't get a cut of all Facebook's revenue – he believes if a creator isn't happy, "he can replace them with others" willing to post for free. In other words, because there are billions of us posting photos of our dogs and kids for fun, Facebook doesn't feel pressured to pay users for content that keeps the platform running.

The result is a stark imbalance between the billions Meta earns and what it shares. Instagram's $32+ billion ad haul in 2021 was achieved while it was intermittently paying some creators bonuses capped at perhaps a few thousand dollars each. An industry publication pointed out the irony: Instagram has been "raking in more ad revenue per year than YouTube" yet told creators it "couldn't afford" continued performance bonuses. Unlike YouTube's dependable AdSense payouts, Meta's creator payments were a tiny goodwill gesture – on the order of <1% of revenue. Indeed, in that $1 billion creator fund (spanning Facebook and IG), the payout was equivalent to less than one day's worth of Meta's annual revenue.

For a concrete example, consider a content creator who posts a video that garners 1 million views on Facebook versus on YouTube. On YouTube, that 1M views might yield, say, $3,000–$5,000 in ad revenue, of which the creator keeps around 55% (~$1,650–$2,750). On Facebook, if that same video is not part of the limited ad program, the creator's direct earnings are $0. Even if eligible for in-stream ads, the payout might be similar to YouTube's on a per-view basis – but only a small slice of Facebook videos qualify. Many Facebook creators therefore see the platform as mainly a marketing channel: they hope to go viral on Facebook to boost their profile, but the platform pockets most of the monetary value of that virality. As one observer put it, Facebook has two pools of ad money: one tied to content (small, shared) and one not tied to any specific post (huge, not shared). And Facebook keeps that big pool all for itself.

TikTok: Massive Engagement, Minuscule Creator Pay

TikTok's rise has been meteoric – and it presents a more extreme example of the "creator gets peanuts" paradigm. TikTok reached over 1 billion users and has kept people glued to an endless feed of short videos (to the point of challenging YouTube and Instagram for screen time). This translated into an estimated $9–$10 billion in global ad revenue in 2022, as brands flocked to run ads between those viral clips.

However, for a long time TikTok did not share ad revenue with individual creators the way YouTube does. Instead, in mid-2020 TikTok launched a "Creator Fund" – a static pool of money (initially $200 million for the U.S., with plans to grow to $1 billion over 3 years) from which it pays creators. TikTok would allocate payouts from this fund based on a creator's share of total platform views. Importantly, the fund size doesn't increase in proportion to TikTok's ad earnings or user growth. As TikTok's popularity exploded, more creators joined the fund and each piece of that static pie shrank.

The experience of creators illustrates how this model yielded dismal payouts. Prominent educational creator Hank Green revealed that TikTok's fund paid him only about $0.02–$0.03 for every 1,000 views. In other words, a video with 1 million views earned him around $20–$30. Others echoed this: Tech TikToker SuperSaf shared that he earned only £112 (≈$137) from 25 million views on TikTok – which comes out to about $5.50 per million views. (For comparison, 25 million views on YouTube could easily generate tens of thousands of dollars in ad revenue, as noted earlier.) Even megastar MrBeast, with over 80 million TikTok followers, reportedly made only about $14,910 over 10 months from the TikTok Creator Fund – a paltry sum next to his YouTube earnings.

These numbers underscore the harsh reality: TikTok was keeping essentially all of the ad value of creators' videos, distributing mere pennies to the people driving its success. Creators widely criticized the fund as opaque and insufficient, noting that as TikTok grew, their per-view pay kept dropping (since the fund pool was fixed). In early 2023, TikTok responded by ending the original Creator Fund and introducing a new program called the "Creativity Program," aiming to improve payouts. TikTok also launched TikTok Pulse in mid-2022, its first attempt at a true ad revenue-sharing model. Through TikTok Pulse, brands' ads can appear alongside the top 4% of videos, and TikTok will split the ad revenue 50/50 with the video's creator. However, only creators with at least 100,000 followers are eligible, and only a small slice of elite content is included.

So while Pulse brings TikTok closer to YouTube's 55% share model on those videos, the vast majority of TikTok creators still have no direct ad revenue share. Their main options to monetize are things like live-streaming gifts, tips, brand sponsorships, or linking out to merch and Patreon. TikTok's own GM of North America admitted that prior to Pulse, the platform "has yet to offer a substantial way for creators to make money" comparable to YouTube.

In practical terms, unless you're a top TikTok star, your TikTok content's monetary value flows almost entirely to the platform, not you. TikTok's engagement might be through the roof – delivering valuable watch-time and data to serve ads – but if you're hoping for an ad revenue check, you'd likely be disappointed. This dynamic led many TikTokers (including Hank Green) to encourage followers to support them elsewhere (YouTube, Patreon, etc.) or even consider moving to platforms with better payouts. It's a vivid example of how users' creativity fuels a multibillion-dollar business, while the users receive only a tiny slice of the financial pie.

OnlyFans: Direct Monetization and the 80/20 Split

In stark contrast to ad-driven social networks, OnlyFans runs on a direct subscription model: fans pay creators for content (usually via monthly subscriptions or one-time purchases), and OnlyFans takes a cut of those payments. It's a very different content ecosystem – known primarily for adult content creators, though it hosts others as well – but it highlights what a more user-centric revenue share can look like.

OnlyFans' policy is straightforward: creators keep 80% of whatever money they earn from their fans, and the platform takes 20% as its fee. Because of this generous split, the majority of revenue on OnlyFans flows to creators. For example, in 2023, fans spent $6.3 billion on OnlyFans content, and $5.3 billion (over 84%) was paid out to creators. The company's actual net revenue (its 20% cut) was about $1.3 billion – tiny compared to the likes of YouTube or Meta, but that's by design. OnlyFans is essentially a platform infrastructure for creators to monetize their own content directly.

In fact, OnlyFans boasts one of the highest payout ratios in the industry (as one report noted, "80% in favor of the creator – that's much higher than any safe-for-work platform in our industry"). What does this mean for users and creators? It means if a subscriber pays $10 for an OnlyFans creator's exclusive post, about $8 goes straight to the creator, whereas on ad-based platforms a user's equivalent contribution (watching some ads or generating engagement) might earn the creator a few cents at best.

Top OnlyFans creators can and do earn substantial incomes (some earn six or seven figures annually from their fan subscriptions), effectively monetizing their personal brand without relying on advertiser-driven algorithms. Even more modest creators see a direct correlation between the content they produce, the audience they build, and the income they take home – something that is often murky or absent on ad-supported social media.

It's worth noting that OnlyFans, by its nature, attracts users specifically willing to pay for content. Not every social media creator could easily get their audience to follow them behind a paywall. But the platform's success (it grew explosively during the past few years) underscores a broader point: when fans pay creators directly for content, creators capture far more of the value. The platform's role shifts to facilitator rather than sole beneficiary. OnlyFans shows one extreme of the spectrum – one could call it "creator-owned" in terms of revenue model (though the platform still holds power in other ways). While its content niche is unique, the underlying principle extends beyond adult content: many creators in the broader "creator economy" are turning to direct monetization models (like Patreon, Substack newsletters, paid communities, etc.) to retain a bigger share of their value.

The Hidden Cost of "Free" Platforms: Lost Profits and Control

As we've seen, platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and (to a lesser extent) YouTube profit massively from user activity and content. When you rely solely on these platforms, you are essentially giving them a free license to monetize your work and data. The opportunity cost can be huge. Every viral post you create that earns a platform ad dollars but pays you nothing is, in a sense, lost revenue you might have earned if that content were monetized elsewhere or owned by you.

For casual users, the trade-off is usually acceptable – you get a free service to connect with friends or entertain yourself, in exchange for seeing some ads and giving up some data. But it's eye-opening to realize just how valuable your usage is: an American Facebook user's presence is worth a few hundred dollars a year to Meta, yet as a user you don't see a penny of that.

For content creators or influencers, the trade-off is more precarious. They pour hours into creating videos, photos, or posts that keep audiences engaged on a platform. If the platform shares ad revenue (like YouTube), great – you get some compensation. If it doesn't (like Instagram or TikTok's main feed), you're effectively working for the platform for free, unless you secure outside sponsorships. And even if you do land brand deals, the platform might change its algorithm tomorrow and throttle your reach, directly impacting your income potential.

There's also a control aspect: when you build an audience on a social platform, the platform ultimately controls access to those followers. We've seen cases where creators with millions of followers suddenly have their account suspended or reach drastically reduced due to algorithm changes or policy enforcement, wiping out income streams overnight. Additionally, platforms can (and have) changed the rules around monetization at any time – as Instagram did by canceling Reels bonuses or as TikTok did by modifying its creator fund. Relying on a third-party platform means accepting that you don't fully own the relationship with your audience or the monetization pipeline.

Financially, the differences can be staggering. Recall the TikTok vs YouTube example: 25 million views earned one TikToker about $137, whereas on YouTube the same content could have earned on the order of $50,000–$75,000 (given typical ad rates). That's tens of thousands of dollars left on the table. Or consider an Instagram influencer who generates millions of impressions that lead to higher engagement on the app (translating to more ad impressions for Meta). Instagram made an average of $22.43 per user worldwide in 2022 in advertising, but how much did the typical creator on Instagram get from the company? Essentially $0 from Instagram itself, unless they were in a special program.

The imbalance is clear: the platforms retain the lion's share of revenue derived from user content. All of this isn't to say "abandon social media" – these networks are valuable for discovery and community building. But it highlights the importance of owning your content and platform whenever possible. When you host your own website or use a channel where you control monetization, you can capture far more of the value:

You keep a higher percentage of revenue. If you run your own blog with ads or sell products/subscriptions on your site, you might keep 90-100% of the income (minus maybe a payment processing fee or ad network cut). That sure beats 0% or a tiny fraction from a social feed post.
You have direct access to your audience. You can collect email subscribers, manage a mailing list, or have users sign up directly on your platform. This means if a social app's algorithm changes, you still have a way to reach your fans. The audience you build is yours, not just "borrowed" from Instagram or TikTok.
Flexibility in monetization. On your own site or platform, you can choose how to make money – be it ads, sponsorships, memberships, donations, merchandise, or anything else – without being limited to whatever features a social network provides. You're also free to adjust pricing, run promotions, or pivot content strategy without a platform's permission.
Protection from platform whims. Owning content means an account ban on a social app won't erase your entire body of work. We've seen instances where creators preemptively ask followers to join their personal newsletter or website "just in case" something happens on social media. It's a smart hedge.

In essence, not owning your platform means giving up both money and control. It's like renting vs. owning a home: renting (posting solely on social platforms) is easier and fine for a while, but all your rent payments build no equity – they enrich the landlord (the platform). Owning (your own site) requires more initial effort, but you're investing in your asset that can appreciate and pay dividends back to you.

Building Your Own Platform: Easier (and Cheaper) Than Ever

If the idea of "hosting your own content" sounds technical or daunting, here's some good news: it's more accessible now in 2025 than it has ever been. You don't need to be a coder or spend a fortune to carve out your own corner of the internet. In fact, the web is flooded with new personal sites, blogs, and stores every day – a recent report noted that nearly 252,000 new websites are created daily in 2024.

This explosion is fueled by user-friendly tools and services that handle the heavy lifting for you. Consider just a few options available:

No-Code Website Builders: Platforms like Wix, Squarespace, and Webflow allow you to create a professional-looking website with drag-and-drop simplicity, no coding required. They offer templates for blogs, portfolios, online stores – you name it. In minutes, you can have a basic site up and running. Many offer free tiers or affordable plans, making them accessible to anyone.
Content Management Systems (CMS): WordPress is a hugely popular CMS that powers about 45% of all websites on the internet, from personal blogs to major news sites. WordPress can be used via WordPress.com (hosted service) or self-hosted on inexpensive web hosting. Its popularity means there are countless plugins for adding features (e.g. e-commerce, memberships) without needing custom code. Other CMS options like Ghost (great for blogs/newsletters) or Jekyll/Hugo (for simple static sites) cater to different needs.
Newsletters and Subscription Platforms: If your main content is writing or videos and you want built-in subscriptions, services like Substack or Patreon can be a halfway-house to independence. They host your content and handle payments from fans. While they do take a cut, they generally let you keep the majority of subscription revenue (Substack, for instance, lets creators keep ~90%). Importantly, you typically get to own your mailing list or subscriber list, so you maintain that direct audience relationship.
Community Platforms: Want to host a community or forum outside of Facebook Groups or Reddit? Tools like Circle, Discord, or open-source forums let you create spaces where you set the rules and can integrate monetization (e.g. paid access to premium channels).
E-commerce for Merchandise/Products: If part of your content strategy involves selling products (merch, art, courses, etc.), platforms like Shopify or WooCommerce (a WordPress plugin) make it straightforward to set up your own online store integrated with your site. You again control pricing and customer data.

What about cost and effort? Domain names (your .com or .net) usually run about $10–15 per year. Basic web hosting can be as cheap as a few dollars a month (some even offer free plans for simple sites or allow you to host on a subdomain). Many creators find that for under $100/year total, they can maintain a personal website with a custom domain and necessary features – essentially the cost of one nice dinner out, to own your platform for a year. And if you're not comfortable managing a site, there's a vast ecosystem of tutorials, support forums, and professionals/freelancers who can help set things up.

In short, the barrier to entry for owning your slice of the web has never been lower. It's also worth emphasizing the upside of going this route. When you host content on your own site, you get 100% of the ad revenue or sales (after basic fees). You're not splitting with YouTube or constrained by Instagram's no-link policy. Your site can also become a hub: you can still use social media for marketing – posting teasers or clips that lead people back to your site for the full content or for a subscription sign-up.

Many successful creators operate this way: they leverage social media to grow awareness but funnel true fans to owned channels (like a website or email newsletter) where they have full monetization freedom. This strategy ensures that even if a platform's algorithm decides not to favor them one day, their core audience and income don't vanish.

One might ask: if self-hosting is so great, why use social platforms at all? The reality is you might still use them – but as distribution channels rather than primary revenue sources. The key is to balance your presence: enjoy the reach and network effects of big platforms, but gradually build up your independent channels. Over time, the goal is to have a sustainable setup where the platform algorithms aren't your sole masters and where you're earning what you deserve from the value you create.

Conclusion: Take Back Your Data (and Your Dollars)

Your time, your data, and your creativity are incredibly valuable in today's digital economy – the tech giants' earnings reports make that clear. Social media companies have perfected the art of turning engagement into profit, whether it's by selling targeted ads or taking a cut of every fan contribution. The problem is the equation has been one-sided: the platforms have been keeping the bulk of the money, while users and creators receive at best limited compensation, and at worst nothing at all beyond "likes" and exposure.

The landscape is slowly changing. We see YouTube continuing to prove that sharing revenue can build a robust creator ecosystem. We see TikTok feeling pressure to copy that model (albeit selectively). We see a rise in platforms like OnlyFans, Patreon, and Substack that operate on the premise of paying creators directly and generously. And underlying it all, we have the open web, which empowers individuals to publish and profit without a corporate middleman.

The power dynamic is shifting, but it's up to us as users and creators to accelerate that change by claiming ownership of our content and communities. For the casual user, being aware of this value exchange is important. It might influence how you choose to engage online – perhaps you'll be more selective about which apps you give most of your time and data to, or you'll support creators more directly knowing how little they might be getting from the platforms you watch them on.

For content creators, the message is clear: diversify and own your platform. By all means, enjoy the massive audiences on social media, but don't leave your fate (and earnings) entirely in their hands. Start that website, launch that newsletter, build that community space that's yours. The playing field has never been more in your favor to do so, with minimal cost and hassle.

In the end, the real value of your data and content is what you make of it. If you continue to feed it for free into someone else's machine, it will happily churn out profits – just not for you. But if you take even a small portion of your online presence into your own hands, you might be surprised at how quickly you can begin to retain the value you create. The tools are there, the consumer willingness to support creators is there, and the dependency on legacy social media gatekeepers is fading. It's time to unlock the true value of your data by investing in yourself. After all, you are the source of the content that drives the social media economy – it's only fair you claim your fair share of it.

END OF TRANSMISSION