4 ms·

Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a lon

Yeah right. The competition is doing so well. Try running a video hosting service within the frameworks of the law. It's still the most popular service by a longshot. Classic HN being delusional again.

echelon 7y ago
Reddit, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Twitch Edit: Facebook, Twitter
- ekianjo 7y ago
  You do realise that Disney, HBO and Netflix are one-way distributors right? They don't even belong in that list.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children. These other companies can manage it. YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect. And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.
    - hackinthebochs 7y ago
      >we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow. But there's no reason to include youtube in that, just like you (presumably) don't include the broader internet in that.
- pjc50 7y ago
  None of those compete directly with user-uploaded content of arbitrary length. Vimeo and Dailymotion are the nearest competitors.
  - 8note 7y ago
    doesn't Facebook do that?
    - yoz-y 7y ago
      Do people go to Facebook directly to just watch video from their non-friends? Is it even possible? Genuinely asking, I haven’t used FB for quite some time.
      - krapp 7y ago
        Yes, people go to Facebook to watch videos. However, I think it's too restrictive to only consider platforms to be competitors of Youtube only when the use case is analogous, and it's incorrect to imply that Facebook can only be competing with Youtube if their users exclusively use it to watch videos. Any platform that supports video streaming is potentially competing against Youtube. The specific use case of the platform is irrelevant, only scale and mindshare matter - the degree to which people spend time there rather than on Youtube.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      The platform does, in theory, although until recently it was limited to 45 minute videos OR a livestream. Culturally, it doesn't. There aren't famous "facebookers". It doesn't even support playlists.
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Others have clarified how those products are different and not even close to YouTube.
cududa 7y ago
Seems this comment thread got posted to some internal YouTube discussion forum.
dang 7y ago
Please don't break the site guidelines by snarking and calling names. Posturing above the rest of the community isn't helpful either. If you're posting here, you're as much "HN" as anyone. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mav3rick 7y ago
  Acknowledged.
- sexisfun 7y ago
  Why is my account banned?
  - dang 7y ago
    I'm not sure, but if you email us we can probably sort it out.
    - sexisfun 7y ago
      Shadow banning is unethical. Why aren't you displaying notice to the users?

echelon 7y ago

Reddit, Netflix, HBO, Disney+, Twitch Edit: Facebook, Twitter

ekianjo 7y ago
You do realise that Disney, HBO and Netflix are one-way distributors right? They don't even belong in that list.
- DanBC 7y ago
  We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children. These other companies can manage it. YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect. And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.
  - hackinthebochs 7y ago
    >we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow. But there's no reason to include youtube in that, just like you (presumably) don't include the broader internet in that.
pjc50 7y ago
None of those compete directly with user-uploaded content of arbitrary length. Vimeo and Dailymotion are the nearest competitors.
- 8note 7y ago
  doesn't Facebook do that?
  - yoz-y 7y ago
    Do people go to Facebook directly to just watch video from their non-friends? Is it even possible? Genuinely asking, I haven’t used FB for quite some time.
    - krapp 7y ago
      Yes, people go to Facebook to watch videos. However, I think it's too restrictive to only consider platforms to be competitors of Youtube only when the use case is analogous, and it's incorrect to imply that Facebook can only be competing with Youtube if their users exclusively use it to watch videos. Any platform that supports video streaming is potentially competing against Youtube. The specific use case of the platform is irrelevant, only scale and mindshare matter - the degree to which people spend time there rather than on Youtube.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    The platform does, in theory, although until recently it was limited to 45 minute videos OR a livestream. Culturally, it doesn't. There aren't famous "facebookers". It doesn't even support playlists.
mav3rick 7y ago
Others have clarified how those products are different and not even close to YouTube.

cududa 7y ago

Seems this comment thread got posted to some internal YouTube discussion forum.

dang 7y ago

Please don't break the site guidelines by snarking and calling names. Posturing above the rest of the community isn't helpful either. If you're posting here, you're as much "HN" as anyone. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mav3rick 7y ago
Acknowledged.
sexisfun 7y ago
Why is my account banned?
- dang 7y ago
  I'm not sure, but if you email us we can probably sort it out.
  - sexisfun 7y ago
    Shadow banning is unethical. Why aren't you displaying notice to the users?