3 ms·

I was going to say something similar. I actually think YouTube (as a hosting/sharing platform) is a net-negative for the internet because there are already mill

I was going to say something similar. I actually think YouTube (as a hosting/sharing platform) is a net-negative for the internet because there are already millions of videos that were embedded in pages that are no longer working because YouTube removed them, the account was deleted, or any number of things. If the internet worked the way it was intended, these videos would have been hosted on the site rather than embedded and would be still working. If the video wasn't there anymore, that usually means the content isn't there anymore. It's almost worse than dead hyperlinks because it's almost always supplemental content that references a video that can't be accessed anymore. :( That being said, it's a net-positive when it comes to content created. The internet wouldn't be as crazy without YouTube, so thanks for that.

criley2 7y ago
In nearly all of those cases, the content was removed because either the uploader wanted it removed, or the owner of the intellectual property in the video wanted it removed. In both of those cases, I don't see how this is Youtube's fault or decentralized hosting would be better. In the first case (uploader wants it gone) you have a sticky situation where loosely managed websites refuse (or can't) respond to requests to remove, which can start interfering with various laws in various places. In the second case, where IP has been violated, those same loosely managed sites run significant legal risk of lawsuit by not responding. From the perspective of a content owner or video creator, why would you want your work decentrally stored in places that you can't control it? The other angles here have to do with monetization, too. When you use youtube, you can serve user aware ads and track who is watching your video as it spreads. If it is self-hosted, your content has been stolen and is enriching someone else illegally. From a creators perspective I can't see how decentrally stored videos would be good. Perhaps what we need is a Library of Congress type organization to begin a serious long-term archive of significant portions of this type of media.
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  I would agree with you if thousands of videos and accounts weren't removed daily due to false "intellectual property" claims and automated reporting. YouTube's system is terrible because they're so large that they've had to try to automate a system that can't really be automated. A decentralized system would require those claims to actually be validated before they're processed because, otherwise, it would be a waste of time and money for the companies making the false claims. I agree with you on the Library of Congress. We need a digital LoC.
  - criley2 7y ago
    After thinking about it, a decentralized system of intellectual property theft would not work the way you think. The owners would stop contacting individual sites for individual confirmation and would send safe harbor / DMCA reports to the host who would nuke the content without spending ten seconds on it to preserve their business. The only sites safe would be those self-hosting, and those wouldn't be able to serve a lot of bandwidth without having the means to be sued.
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      Even in that case, you'd have to deal with every hosting provider which, at the very least, would require an actual legal DMCA request rather than an automated one and, since people would be able to self-host, a way to contact their ISP who would have to verify that the claim and request are even valid. With YouTube, the automation is what's killing content creators and the archival value of the platform.
philwelch 7y ago
> I actually think YouTube (as a hosting/sharing platform) is a net-negative for the internet because there are already millions of videos that were embedded in pages that are no longer working because YouTube removed them, the account was deleted, or any number of things. If the internet worked the way it was intended, these videos would have been hosted on the site rather than embedded and would be still working. If it wasn't for YouTube, most of those videos never would have been embedded in those pages in the first place. If the situation you describe was in any way feasible, people would have done that in the first place instead of using YouTube. You're asking for an imaginary free lunch type of situation.
- dpkonofa 7y ago
  What? That's exactly how the internet worked before YouTube. YouTube became the standard because you could easily upload things for free since the content was no longer the product. YouTube is only free because they can sell the data surrounding the videos to advertisers. Without that, we'd have exactly the situation that I'm describing because that's exactly the situation that we did have before YouTube came around (and that YouTube helped before it became beholden to companies rather than creators).
  - philwelch 7y ago
    > What? That's exactly how the internet worked before YouTube. Yeah--there weren't very many videos because most web hosting services didn't let you consume that much hard drive space.
    - dpkonofa 7y ago
      I don't think that HD space was the limiting factor. We'd still have gotten to the point of unlimited storage space like we have now.

criley2 7y ago

In nearly all of those cases, the content was removed because either the uploader wanted it removed, or the owner of the intellectual property in the video wanted it removed. In both of those cases, I don't see how this is Youtube's fault or decentralized hosting would be better. In the first case (uploader wants it gone) you have a sticky situation where loosely managed websites refuse (or can't) respond to requests to remove, which can start interfering with various laws in various places. In the second case, where IP has been violated, those same loosely managed sites run significant legal risk of lawsuit by not responding. From the perspective of a content owner or video creator, why would you want your work decentrally stored in places that you can't control it? The other angles here have to do with monetization, too. When you use youtube, you can serve user aware ads and track who is watching your video as it spreads. If it is self-hosted, your content has been stolen and is enriching someone else illegally. From a creators perspective I can't see how decentrally stored videos would be good. Perhaps what we need is a Library of Congress type organization to begin a serious long-term archive of significant portions of this type of media.

dpkonofa 7y ago
I would agree with you if thousands of videos and accounts weren't removed daily due to false "intellectual property" claims and automated reporting. YouTube's system is terrible because they're so large that they've had to try to automate a system that can't really be automated. A decentralized system would require those claims to actually be validated before they're processed because, otherwise, it would be a waste of time and money for the companies making the false claims. I agree with you on the Library of Congress. We need a digital LoC.
- criley2 7y ago
  After thinking about it, a decentralized system of intellectual property theft would not work the way you think. The owners would stop contacting individual sites for individual confirmation and would send safe harbor / DMCA reports to the host who would nuke the content without spending ten seconds on it to preserve their business. The only sites safe would be those self-hosting, and those wouldn't be able to serve a lot of bandwidth without having the means to be sued.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    Even in that case, you'd have to deal with every hosting provider which, at the very least, would require an actual legal DMCA request rather than an automated one and, since people would be able to self-host, a way to contact their ISP who would have to verify that the claim and request are even valid. With YouTube, the automation is what's killing content creators and the archival value of the platform.

philwelch 7y ago

> I actually think YouTube (as a hosting/sharing platform) is a net-negative for the internet because there are already millions of videos that were embedded in pages that are no longer working because YouTube removed them, the account was deleted, or any number of things. If the internet worked the way it was intended, these videos would have been hosted on the site rather than embedded and would be still working. If it wasn't for YouTube, most of those videos never would have been embedded in those pages in the first place. If the situation you describe was in any way feasible, people would have done that in the first place instead of using YouTube. You're asking for an imaginary free lunch type of situation.

dpkonofa 7y ago
What? That's exactly how the internet worked before YouTube. YouTube became the standard because you could easily upload things for free since the content was no longer the product. YouTube is only free because they can sell the data surrounding the videos to advertisers. Without that, we'd have exactly the situation that I'm describing because that's exactly the situation that we did have before YouTube came around (and that YouTube helped before it became beholden to companies rather than creators).
- philwelch 7y ago
  > What? That's exactly how the internet worked before YouTube. Yeah--there weren't very many videos because most web hosting services didn't let you consume that much hard drive space.
  - dpkonofa 7y ago
    I don't think that HD space was the limiting factor. We'd still have gotten to the point of unlimited storage space like we have now.