4 ms·

> This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting Far from it. You can host your v

> This is such a tired argument. YouTube is ubiquitous - it is the primary (read: effectively only) platform for video hosting Far from it. You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that people like to complain about.

hoka-one-one 6y ago
This whole argument has been repeated many, many times on HN. Can we stop letting this stuff devolve into generic honest discourse vs corporate nihilism debates? At least mention something about COVID so I know which thread I'm in.
the_af 6y ago
> A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that people like to complain about. I'm not sure about this. Besides removing obvious hate speech, which sort of content curation do you mean? I thought its success was due to everyone being able to upload and share video clips. I don't think curation was an important feature.
- krapp 6y ago
  >I don't think curation was an important feature. Maybe it wasn't in the beginning, but Youtube is a Google company now, and their entire business model is based on (mostly) algorithmic curation. The business model of every content creator depends upon catering to the preferences of that algorithm, and their success at doing so determines their value to advertisers. Entire genres of content have come into being and have been destroyed overnight because of the algorithm. Youtube's success mostly comes from driving discovery of new content through recommended channels and videos.
  - the_af 6y ago
    That was my point, it wasn't in the beginning. YouTube's initial success wasn't caused by curation, which is the implication I was replying to. I'm not sure the discovery/recommendation algorithm is the same as curation. It seems to me these are related but distinct fields.
- matz1 6y ago
  what youtube decide the list of video when you go to www.youtube.com is the content curation. Its a very important feature.
- cfmcdonald 6y ago
  YouTube is perceived as a family-friendly, PG to PG-13 brand. It would be a very different, and much more niche, environment if it were a free-for-all of pornography, obscene language and graphic violence.
  - the_af 6y ago
    I agree, but notice that except for pornography, which I forgot to include, I covered all of the others (sort of) with "hate speech". Banning violence/insults/pornography/harassment is an obviously useful filter for a PG-13 site, but I don't think it qualifies as curation. To me curation implies something related to the selection of quality.
mirimir 6y ago
> You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. Maybe not "nefarious" exactly. But YouTube does have a virtual monopoly. And that's arguably illegal in the US. Or at least, it exposes them to additional government oversight.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  In what sense does YT have a monopoly?
  - adarioble 6y ago
    In a sense that is a default go to platform for many people when searching for (video) content.
    - ilikehurdles 6y ago
      Being the most popular platform doesn’t make something a monopoly.
      - rmrfstar 6y ago
        Instead of arguing about the semantics of "monopoly," it could be fun to ask "does YouTube have power that we as a self-governing people should regulate?" I think it does. Others disagree. Sometimes it's an interesting discussion.
      - mirimir 6y ago
        If there's no substantial competition, it's a monopoly. Intentionality isn't that important. It's about market power.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

hoka-one-one 6y ago

This whole argument has been repeated many, many times on HN. Can we stop letting this stuff devolve into generic honest discourse vs corporate nihilism debates? At least mention something about COVID so I know which thread I'm in.

the_af 6y ago

> A lot of what makes them successful as a hosting platform is the same content curation that people like to complain about. I'm not sure about this. Besides removing obvious hate speech, which sort of content curation do you mean? I thought its success was due to everyone being able to upload and share video clips. I don't think curation was an important feature.

krapp 6y ago
>I don't think curation was an important feature. Maybe it wasn't in the beginning, but Youtube is a Google company now, and their entire business model is based on (mostly) algorithmic curation. The business model of every content creator depends upon catering to the preferences of that algorithm, and their success at doing so determines their value to advertisers. Entire genres of content have come into being and have been destroyed overnight because of the algorithm. Youtube's success mostly comes from driving discovery of new content through recommended channels and videos.
- the_af 6y ago
  That was my point, it wasn't in the beginning. YouTube's initial success wasn't caused by curation, which is the implication I was replying to. I'm not sure the discovery/recommendation algorithm is the same as curation. It seems to me these are related but distinct fields.
matz1 6y ago
what youtube decide the list of video when you go to www.youtube.com is the content curation. Its a very important feature.
cfmcdonald 6y ago
YouTube is perceived as a family-friendly, PG to PG-13 brand. It would be a very different, and much more niche, environment if it were a free-for-all of pornography, obscene language and graphic violence.
- the_af 6y ago
  I agree, but notice that except for pornography, which I forgot to include, I covered all of the others (sort of) with "hate speech". Banning violence/insults/pornography/harassment is an obviously useful filter for a PG-13 site, but I don't think it qualifies as curation. To me curation implies something related to the selection of quality.

mirimir 6y ago

> You can host your video anywhere you like, but you get the most eyeballs and revenue from YouTube, and that's based on user preference and not on some nefarious activity on their part. Maybe not "nefarious" exactly. But YouTube does have a virtual monopoly. And that's arguably illegal in the US. Or at least, it exposes them to additional government oversight.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
In what sense does YT have a monopoly?
- adarioble 6y ago
  In a sense that is a default go to platform for many people when searching for (video) content.
  - ilikehurdles 6y ago
    Being the most popular platform doesn’t make something a monopoly.
    - rmrfstar 6y ago
      Instead of arguing about the semantics of "monopoly," it could be fun to ask "does YouTube have power that we as a self-governing people should regulate?" I think it does. Others disagree. Sometimes it's an interesting discussion.
    - mirimir 6y ago
      If there's no substantial competition, it's a monopoly. Intentionality isn't that important. It's about market power.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]