10 ms·

> if it exists Herein lies the problem.. Most creators/uploaders know on some level that YT is a toxic monopoly and would be happy to jump ship. Granted some m

by Liquix 7y ago

> if it exists Herein lies the problem.. Most creators/uploaders know on some level that YT is a toxic monopoly and would be happy to jump ship. Granted some more than others, but I've never observed any sense of loyalty towards the platform - it's just where everyone goes to share and watch videos. However, switching to vimeo/DTube/flixxo/etc means less views and smaller paychecks. Why would content creators in the same amount of effort for less recognition & money? Nothing will change until alternative services solve the problem of monetization & audience size. Thus a chicken-vs-egg situation where viewers don't want to switch because their favorite uploaders are on YT, uploaders don't want to switch because all their viewers are on YT, and competitors can't convince investors to bankroll them without higher user counts. Meanwhile, the Big G/YT monolith keeps chugging along with thousands of employees and billions of dollars behind it, becoming more deeply entrenched every year. What's the solution?

whatshisface 7y ago
Vimeo isn't clean, they banned Alex Jones for believing (edit: and yes, saying) unacceptable things.
- diminoten 7y ago
  No, they banned him for saying unacceptable things.
- Liquix 7y ago
  Dang, wasn't aware - that's discouraging. However I was not suggesting Vimeo is 'clean' - don't know enough about the ethics/track record of any of those services enough to imply that Vimeo is anything except another option for hosting videos.
- tasty_freeze 7y ago
  Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was that he was a satirist. At the very least, these decisions should be made in court, where the judges are elected and the proceedings are public. Of course that can't happen because the courts have already decided in favor of the speech-miscreants. What Alex Jones was doing is absolutely permitted in our society; and I think there's some wisdom in the reasoning behind why that is. There's nothing less popular than relativism in the midst of a moral outrage, but you have to bear in mind that some of your favorite things were probably at one time (and could easily become again) moral outrages. Alex Jones could just as easily have been caught "encouraging homosexuality in our children," "fomenting hate against church officials," "advocating against job creation," or anything else that the ruling party was against. You'd just have to change the names, places, and times.
    - paulmd 7y ago
      The US is one of the few countries that believes in a radical, unlimited right to free speech. Most other countries, it is not tolerated, and this has not lead to a slippery slope. Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't just fine, they are actually the better for it. If you feel that Germany or the UK are dystopias where ideological dissent is brutally suppressed, well, that's just your opinion, man.
      - syberiyxx 7y ago
        Have you moved to Europe yet?
        paulmd 7y ago
- Aelius 7y ago
  Your definition of "free speech" includes not taking action against truly malicious and slanderous and manipulative people like Alex Jones? And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here, Jones exists miles beyond what is ever ok.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here That's exactly the argument, not everybody thinks Alex Jones went too far. In fact, I bet a lot of people who listen to Alex Jones would find something you supported to be miles beyond what is ever OK. That's part and parcel of living in a diverse, cosmopolitan society. Sometimes, other people's opinions are miles beyond OK, but that's still okay. ;)
    - Aelius 7y ago
      You seem to be willfully ignoring the demonstrable harm he causes. You're promoting a false balance. You're saying "Alex Jones robbed a bank, other people eat their coworkers' lunch, so who are we to judge?" Absolute nonsense.
      - SamReidHughes 7y ago
        If demonstrable harm is your standard, please just announce you don't believe in free speech and move along. Everybody advocating for the wrong stance on politics creates demonstrable harm.
        Aelius 7y ago
        Free speech means he can say (edit) legally protegted speech* on his own platform. No company is obligated to provide that platform for him. When judging a company for what content they decide they don't want to host, spinning "vimeo banned Alex Jones" as negative is ridiculous. Edited: he can't actually say whatever he wants even on his own platform. There's actually a lawsuit against him right now. Too many internet folk don't actually know what "free speech" means and I should not validate such ignorance.
i_cant_speel 7y ago
What stops creators from uploading to both? Sure, they miss out on some revenue when people watch their video on Vimeo rather than YouTube. But once they are getting a significant portion of their views on another platform, that would likely mean the alternative platform is popular enough to offer reasonable compensation to creators and they can eventually stop sharing content on YouTube.
- knd775 7y ago
  Less views means worse discovery. Basically, if they start to push their viewers to another platform, they'll be recommended less on YouTube. Like it or not, 99.999% of their potential viewers are only on YouTube, which means growth will stagnate. Worse than that, their videos will be shown less even to current subscribers so they'll lose income. There really isn't a good solution that I can think of...
ysavir 7y ago
I'm glad you brought this up. This was the exact question I had a few years ago, when I began developing my idea for a solution. What I considered to be the best approach is to break apart the idea of hosting content and sharing content with your audience in the same place. If you can share in one place and host in another, then switching content hosts ceases to be a problem; You can transfer your content to a different host while preserving the space in which you share, losing no audience or traction in the process. I'm currently in the process of launching this platform, called MyNexus. If you'd like to learn more, or know anyone searching for a solution to these problems, my email is yaniv@mynexus.io.
- boyobo 7y ago
  I don't see how this solves the problem. What happens when your 'link aggregator'? decides to ban certain content?
  - ysavir 7y ago
    That's where the business model comes in. To focus on being a positive tool for content creators, I decided to charge them a monthly fee to have their page on the platform. And I maintain absolutely no other means of revenue. The entirely of the business depends on creators finding it a useful, reliable, and trustworthy tool that is worth their money. I know that doesn't strictly forbid banning certain content, but without the pressure of having to satisfy advertisers, etc., I don't expect to need to ban content. The only exception that comes to mind would be restricting certain content in order to comply with laws. Please do follow up with any questions or concerns you have. My goal is to be transparent and to build trust, so I'm happy to address them.

by Liquix 7y ago

whatshisface 7y ago

Vimeo isn't clean, they banned Alex Jones for believing (edit: and yes, saying) unacceptable things.

diminoten 7y ago
No, they banned him for saying unacceptable things.
Liquix 7y ago
Dang, wasn't aware - that's discouraging. However I was not suggesting Vimeo is 'clean' - don't know enough about the ethics/track record of any of those services enough to imply that Vimeo is anything except another option for hosting videos.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
Your edit doesn't go far enough. He encouraged hate against the parents of the children killed at the Sandyhook mass shooting. Yes, Jones has a right to be a crackpot, but it ends when it infringes on the rights of the people Jones' audience harassing.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  You may be applying an uneven standard by wanting to ban the speech that turns your stomach, but not the speech that turns the Corporate Overlord's stomachs. You could argue that hacking videos encourage computer crime - the counterargument would be that there are plenty of reasons to talk about something other than to actually encourage people to do it. In fact, Alex Jones' defense in one court case he was in was that he was a satirist. At the very least, these decisions should be made in court, where the judges are elected and the proceedings are public. Of course that can't happen because the courts have already decided in favor of the speech-miscreants. What Alex Jones was doing is absolutely permitted in our society; and I think there's some wisdom in the reasoning behind why that is. There's nothing less popular than relativism in the midst of a moral outrage, but you have to bear in mind that some of your favorite things were probably at one time (and could easily become again) moral outrages. Alex Jones could just as easily have been caught "encouraging homosexuality in our children," "fomenting hate against church officials," "advocating against job creation," or anything else that the ruling party was against. You'd just have to change the names, places, and times.
  - paulmd 7y ago
    The US is one of the few countries that believes in a radical, unlimited right to free speech. Most other countries, it is not tolerated, and this has not lead to a slippery slope. Claiming that the families of shooting victims are actually "crisis actors" would not be tolerated under British forms of slander/libel law; Nazi apologism/fetishism or rallying is not tolerated under German laws. These societies aren't just fine, they are actually the better for it. If you feel that Germany or the UK are dystopias where ideological dissent is brutally suppressed, well, that's just your opinion, man.
    - syberiyxx 7y ago
      Have you moved to Europe yet?
      - paulmd 7y ago
Aelius 7y ago
Your definition of "free speech" includes not taking action against truly malicious and slanderous and manipulative people like Alex Jones? And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here, Jones exists miles beyond what is ever ok.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  >And there is no "who draws the line‽" argument here That's exactly the argument, not everybody thinks Alex Jones went too far. In fact, I bet a lot of people who listen to Alex Jones would find something you supported to be miles beyond what is ever OK. That's part and parcel of living in a diverse, cosmopolitan society. Sometimes, other people's opinions are miles beyond OK, but that's still okay. ;)
  - Aelius 7y ago
    You seem to be willfully ignoring the demonstrable harm he causes. You're promoting a false balance. You're saying "Alex Jones robbed a bank, other people eat their coworkers' lunch, so who are we to judge?" Absolute nonsense.
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      If demonstrable harm is your standard, please just announce you don't believe in free speech and move along. Everybody advocating for the wrong stance on politics creates demonstrable harm.
      - Aelius 7y ago
        Free speech means he can say (edit) legally protegted speech* on his own platform. No company is obligated to provide that platform for him. When judging a company for what content they decide they don't want to host, spinning "vimeo banned Alex Jones" as negative is ridiculous. Edited: he can't actually say whatever he wants even on his own platform. There's actually a lawsuit against him right now. Too many internet folk don't actually know what "free speech" means and I should not validate such ignorance.

i_cant_speel 7y ago

What stops creators from uploading to both? Sure, they miss out on some revenue when people watch their video on Vimeo rather than YouTube. But once they are getting a significant portion of their views on another platform, that would likely mean the alternative platform is popular enough to offer reasonable compensation to creators and they can eventually stop sharing content on YouTube.

knd775 7y ago
Less views means worse discovery. Basically, if they start to push their viewers to another platform, they'll be recommended less on YouTube. Like it or not, 99.999% of their potential viewers are only on YouTube, which means growth will stagnate. Worse than that, their videos will be shown less even to current subscribers so they'll lose income. There really isn't a good solution that I can think of...

ysavir 7y ago

I'm glad you brought this up. This was the exact question I had a few years ago, when I began developing my idea for a solution. What I considered to be the best approach is to break apart the idea of hosting content and sharing content with your audience in the same place. If you can share in one place and host in another, then switching content hosts ceases to be a problem; You can transfer your content to a different host while preserving the space in which you share, losing no audience or traction in the process. I'm currently in the process of launching this platform, called MyNexus. If you'd like to learn more, or know anyone searching for a solution to these problems, my email is yaniv@mynexus.io.

boyobo 7y ago
I don't see how this solves the problem. What happens when your 'link aggregator'? decides to ban certain content?
- ysavir 7y ago
  That's where the business model comes in. To focus on being a positive tool for content creators, I decided to charge them a monthly fee to have their page on the platform. And I maintain absolutely no other means of revenue. The entirely of the business depends on creators finding it a useful, reliable, and trustworthy tool that is worth their money. I know that doesn't strictly forbid banning certain content, but without the pressure of having to satisfy advertisers, etc., I don't expect to need to ban content. The only exception that comes to mind would be restricting certain content in order to comply with laws. Please do follow up with any questions or concerns you have. My goal is to be transparent and to build trust, so I'm happy to address them.