4 ms·

It seemed apparent that the video host and the video recommendation/curation systems just need to be two entirely separate parts of the puzzle. The host can be

It seemed apparent that the video host and the video recommendation/curation systems just need to be two entirely separate parts of the puzzle. The host can be transparent, allowing anything that isn’t unlawful to be posted but with no way to discover new content without already learning about it from another source. (This should probably be decentralized, but IDK if the current efforts are good enough for video at YouTube scale) Then, you can rely entirely on other social media outlets or a indexing service (that can preferably index video from multiple services, like TiVo used to do and Apple is trying to do right now. Or how torrent trackers work.) to give you access to it. If you think this video curation system isn’t to your standards, you could just change to another one or build one yourself.

johnday 7y ago
> ... or build one yourself. Do you really think that this is going to be even remotely feasible for 99.999% of the population? I'm a computer scientist and I wouldn't know where to start. Sure, it's easier than "build your own YouTube", but that's not much of a comparison. Besides, surely the host would be incentivised if not obligated to provide recommendation features of their own?
- jedieaston 7y ago
  I’m not saying that 99.99999% of people would be able to do that. However, trusting that you could (or at least could pay someone to do it) if needed because the current recommendation engine was evil is important, so we don’t have a YouTube situation like now.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    You can already build an index site of YouTube videos. That doesn't solve the problem, which is that you have one main indexer that almost everyone uses, and that would remain even if YouTube somehow started hosting the bits on a third-party hosting service.
toast0 7y ago
It would be great if these functions were broken up, but how are you going to pay for the hosting? Youtube works because Google has a printing press for money, and the same sort of general content analysis that powers recommendations also powers advertisements, and ads pay some of the bills. If YouTube is around, uploader pays and viewer pays aren't going to compete. Recommender pays (and inserts ads?) could work, but is a hard sell unless you have content to recommend.
zxcmx 7y ago
The conflict is that curation / recommendation is profitable because it "closes the loop" on the skinner box, you can push towards content that will keep people watching or that makes more money. But Google don't want to be responsible for "recommendations" their own algorithms generate. So they need to figure out a way to make responsibility for the actual content somebody else's problem while still being able to "optimise for engagement" a.k.a direct the click stream.
- chii 7y ago
  tldr; google wants to reap the rewards, but externalize the costs.
the8472 7y ago
Is it really just the recommendations? Sometimes it seems like people want the content that they don't agree with cease to exist but they don't want to go through the effort of filing a lawsuit and having both sides of the argument heard.
TimothyBJacobs 7y ago
How does the video host make enough money to keep afloat? A number of YouTube's controversial decisions have had been prompted, at least in part, with advertiser backlash.

johnday 7y ago

> ... or build one yourself. Do you really think that this is going to be even remotely feasible for 99.999% of the population? I'm a computer scientist and I wouldn't know where to start. Sure, it's easier than "build your own YouTube", but that's not much of a comparison. Besides, surely the host would be incentivised if not obligated to provide recommendation features of their own?

jedieaston 7y ago
I’m not saying that 99.99999% of people would be able to do that. However, trusting that you could (or at least could pay someone to do it) if needed because the current recommendation engine was evil is important, so we don’t have a YouTube situation like now.
- icebraining 7y ago
  You can already build an index site of YouTube videos. That doesn't solve the problem, which is that you have one main indexer that almost everyone uses, and that would remain even if YouTube somehow started hosting the bits on a third-party hosting service.

toast0 7y ago

It would be great if these functions were broken up, but how are you going to pay for the hosting? Youtube works because Google has a printing press for money, and the same sort of general content analysis that powers recommendations also powers advertisements, and ads pay some of the bills. If YouTube is around, uploader pays and viewer pays aren't going to compete. Recommender pays (and inserts ads?) could work, but is a hard sell unless you have content to recommend.

zxcmx 7y ago

The conflict is that curation / recommendation is profitable because it "closes the loop" on the skinner box, you can push towards content that will keep people watching or that makes more money. But Google don't want to be responsible for "recommendations" their own algorithms generate. So they need to figure out a way to make responsibility for the actual content somebody else's problem while still being able to "optimise for engagement" a.k.a direct the click stream.

chii 7y ago
tldr; google wants to reap the rewards, but externalize the costs.

the8472 7y ago

Is it really just the recommendations? Sometimes it seems like people want the content that they don't agree with cease to exist but they don't want to go through the effort of filing a lawsuit and having both sides of the argument heard.

TimothyBJacobs 7y ago

How does the video host make enough money to keep afloat? A number of YouTube's controversial decisions have had been prompted, at least in part, with advertiser backlash.