5 ms·
Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up. While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
by jmkni 7y ago
Hosting video isn't cheap, especially when the traffic picks up.
While in theory you aren't losing that ability, in practice most people can't afford to.
- kthejoker2 7y agoSo .. Forcing other people to pay to host your "not cheap" content is okay? Maybe I can use my neighbor's power to operate a giant billboard with my personal views? I mean, it's not cheap, but I really think my POV deserves the largest possible platform. Anything less is effectively my neighbor censoring me.
- jmkni 7y agoI'm not trying to say that anything is/isn't ok, I'm directly replying to: > Set up your own website and host the content. Nobody is removing that ability. In practice, things might not be that simple.
- kthejoker2 7y agoWhat is your proposed alternative? And this is a strawman anyway, there are plenty of sites that let you post video content without these same sorts of policies. And if they don't have the network effects of YouTube, boo hoo.
- threeseed 7y agoSo then find a way to monetise the website. You can ask users to pay for it just like Netflix, New York Times etc do. Or have advertising. But of course just like YouTube you then need to factor in their needs.
- dageshi 7y agoIt's too difficult to do yourself but it's fine to demand a company provide it for you, for free, I see.
- raxxorrax 7y agousers provide the content necessary for the platform to exist. Shouldn't we ask them then? As a user, I am certainly interested in which advertisers are promoting more content controls. That would be quite a service. Nothing is expected to be provided here.
- 0815test 7y agoBittorrent (and PopcornTime for the "streaming" experience) is quite cheap. Or you could use IPFS, the newest player in that space.
- Fjolsvith 7y agohttps://d.tube/ https://d.tube/