5 ms·

Without advertising revenue, what incentive do many of these content creators have to participate? These alternative systems are unsustainable.

by Dowwie 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago
Plenty of people will post videos e.g. promoting racial hatred or Islamic State for free, especially on an censorship-resistant service.
- Wertyol 8y ago
  Free speech is a good thing. Scared of IS propaganda? Deal with the root issues that cause it instead.
godelski 8y ago
Blender and OCW weren't monetizing their channels on YouTube... Some people just want to share their content. Not everyone is in it for the money.
- patrickaljord 8y ago
  Blender receives millions of dollars in donation and OCW is backed my MIT which gets billions of dollars in revenue. How is that comparable to starting creators who want to build a career? Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube. Maybe you missed the news, but Blender had all their videos blocked for several days.
  - GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
    https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
corobo 8y ago
YouTube started without advertising revenue too. I understand that doesn't help current creators but the problem YouTube competitors have right now seems to be a cycle of trying to match features, run out of money, shut down My theory is any site with a chance of toppling YouTube needs to avoid trying to topple YouTube directly and rather recreate its rise to the top
- SerLava 8y ago
  I still hold the opinion that YouTube didn't win because of the social features we think of now - it won because in 2005, it was the only video player that always did something when you hit the Play button. That was it.
  - theDoug 8y ago
    Definitely agree on the technical front. Vimeo was around first and focused on 1080/HD content, and had actual enforcement of community guidelines that accounts should only be uploading content they made or took part in. YouTube (pre-Google) was gaining massive popularity with South Park and other TV content chopped into 12 minute segments to get past then-current restrictions for length. Vimeo was a better experience for community, but YouTube was a better experience for audience desires. (I work for Google Cloud but opinions are sure my own)
    - SerLava 8y ago
      Yeah I agree with you there too. The ripped TV played a huge part.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Ripped TV still constitutes a significant amount of content.
  - corobo 8y ago
    Yes and what I mean was that the next one to have any chance of winning will be the one that stops trying to win. YouTube already exists and has features a startup can't compete with. It's like trying to compete with Amazon on price and delivery speed, you're going to run out of money before you make a dent. Look at Twitch for example, it's keeping its head in the game by starting out so different YouTube is now trying to keep up with it
detaro 8y ago
Many don't primarily rely on YouTube advertising revenue (especially since YT has become fairly aggressive in excluding videos from monetization anyways). Sponsored content, in-video advertising, Patreon etc. all are revenue sources that don't rely on the platform providing advertising.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  I thought the majority of the complains on Youtube were more about demonetization rather than content removal. PeerTube is solving the latter, but that doesn't help most people who are upset that they are making less money since the adpocalypse.
  - detaro 8y ago
    True, but if YT doesn't provide reliable ad revenue there's less reason to only put your content on YouTube. And with general unhappiness with the platform comes a desire for having at least a backup plan, so why not start posting in multiple locations now?
    - ehsankia 8y ago
      If by "backup plan", you mean your videos being accessible, sure. But usually, when people talk about diversifying, they are talking about revenue. In this case, PeerTube isn't really bringing revenue so I'm not sure it helps much. What would help is getting a Patreon or streaming on Twitch. Those are different sources of income, PeerTube isn't really unless you get hit like Blender did.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  yup mm-hmm wha? dude... Started strong but progressed into the crapper

Without advertising revenue, what incentive do many of these content creators have to participate? These alternative systems are unsustainable.

by Dowwie 8y ago

Without advertising revenue, what incentive do many of these content creators have to participate? These alternative systems are unsustainable.

pjc50 8y ago

Plenty of people will post videos e.g. promoting racial hatred or Islamic State for free, especially on an censorship-resistant service.

Wertyol 8y ago
Free speech is a good thing. Scared of IS propaganda? Deal with the root issues that cause it instead.

godelski 8y ago

Blender and OCW weren't monetizing their channels on YouTube... Some people just want to share their content. Not everyone is in it for the money.

patrickaljord 8y ago
Blender receives millions of dollars in donation and OCW is backed my MIT which gets billions of dollars in revenue. How is that comparable to starting creators who want to build a career? Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > Also Blender and OCW don't need peertube as their content is very unlikely to get censored on youtube. Maybe you missed the news, but Blender had all their videos blocked for several days.
- GyYZTfWBfQw 8y ago
  https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/ https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...

corobo 8y ago

YouTube started without advertising revenue too. I understand that doesn't help current creators but the problem YouTube competitors have right now seems to be a cycle of trying to match features, run out of money, shut down My theory is any site with a chance of toppling YouTube needs to avoid trying to topple YouTube directly and rather recreate its rise to the top

SerLava 8y ago
I still hold the opinion that YouTube didn't win because of the social features we think of now - it won because in 2005, it was the only video player that always did something when you hit the Play button. That was it.
- theDoug 8y ago
  Definitely agree on the technical front. Vimeo was around first and focused on 1080/HD content, and had actual enforcement of community guidelines that accounts should only be uploading content they made or took part in. YouTube (pre-Google) was gaining massive popularity with South Park and other TV content chopped into 12 minute segments to get past then-current restrictions for length. Vimeo was a better experience for community, but YouTube was a better experience for audience desires. (I work for Google Cloud but opinions are sure my own)
  - SerLava 8y ago
    Yeah I agree with you there too. The ripped TV played a huge part.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Ripped TV still constitutes a significant amount of content.
- corobo 8y ago
  Yes and what I mean was that the next one to have any chance of winning will be the one that stops trying to win. YouTube already exists and has features a startup can't compete with. It's like trying to compete with Amazon on price and delivery speed, you're going to run out of money before you make a dent. Look at Twitch for example, it's keeping its head in the game by starting out so different YouTube is now trying to keep up with it

detaro 8y ago

Many don't primarily rely on YouTube advertising revenue (especially since YT has become fairly aggressive in excluding videos from monetization anyways). Sponsored content, in-video advertising, Patreon etc. all are revenue sources that don't rely on the platform providing advertising.

ehsankia 8y ago
I thought the majority of the complains on Youtube were more about demonetization rather than content removal. PeerTube is solving the latter, but that doesn't help most people who are upset that they are making less money since the adpocalypse.
- detaro 8y ago
  True, but if YT doesn't provide reliable ad revenue there's less reason to only put your content on YouTube. And with general unhappiness with the platform comes a desire for having at least a backup plan, so why not start posting in multiple locations now?
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    If by "backup plan", you mean your videos being accessible, sure. But usually, when people talk about diversifying, they are talking about revenue. In this case, PeerTube isn't really bringing revenue so I'm not sure it helps much. What would help is getting a Patreon or streaming on Twitch. Those are different sources of income, PeerTube isn't really unless you get hit like Blender did.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

metalliqaz 8y ago
yup mm-hmm wha? dude... Started strong but progressed into the crapper