4 ms·
so now what? Instead of millions of channels competing on one very good and easily accessible site, designed to show videos, they will compete on a much larger
by marshmallow_12 6y ago
so now what? Instead of millions of channels competing on one very good and easily accessible site, designed to show videos, they will compete on a much larger scale, with far bulkier channels on a site that displays other things as well. The punchline is that both sites are controlled by the same company. I can predict that exactly nothing will be gained by this, except the flooding of internet by many more videos.
- imwillofficial 6y agoDefine “very good” You mean we get more websites? Oh my god! What if the internet has too many websites! Whatever will we do?! If only we had a way to crawl websites and make them into some kind of list for searching, like some kind of engine for search.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoyou misunderstood me. a quick google search reveals that YouTube uses 15% of internet traffic. You suggest getting rid of YouTube and putting 15% extra workload onto google. you think that won't be an issue? as for the "very good" part, yes, youtube is extremely successful at aggregating and displaying useful videos. It is also extremely good at searching through its library and displaying individual users useful videos. Google is far less effective at this, of course. Also, replacing channels with individual websites will vastly increase the internet traffic, not just a minor surge.
- imwillofficial 6y agoThanks for the clarification! I disagree on youtube being very good at its job, however that is a very subjective assessment. I think as it stands now, you are correct, but I believe these sites will give rise to more decentralized video sharing infrastructure as people slowly see the need to control their own destinies.
- marshmallow_12 6y agoWhat? through the medium of Google?
- imwillofficial 6y agoNo, I was thinking more like peertube. https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/