8 ms·

Some examples of what the OP means by "lost sovereignty" would be useful. I assume he means ability to monetize how he wants, or to avoid algorithmic claims aga

Some examples of what the OP means by "lost sovereignty" would be useful. I assume he means ability to monetize how he wants, or to avoid algorithmic claims against his work etc....but who knows - the author does not explain.

elliekelly 5y ago
He posted a video[1] about why he left. It sounds like YouTube updated terms of service that required him to allow YouTube to put ads in his videos and he never wanted to monetize his work, he’s making the videos to share information, not to make money for him or anyone else. [1]https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671e-49ae-91fb-93f08a236f2c https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671...
- RL_Quine 5y ago
  Evil company decides not to take a loss on hosting probably zettabytes of video? It's really hard to paint youtube as the villain here and keep a straight face.
  - gameswithgo 5y ago
    nobody called anyone a villain. he simply didn’t like the change and moved to a new service. basic free market forces working well and we can all be happy about it
  - acomjean 5y ago
    Thats a good point. Hosting isn't free, so someone is going to have to pay some cost. Even if the original goal was just to share information and not profit, there are some costs associated with running a site. One wonders if youtube had an option for you to pay them to host videos for you without ads, if that would be popular. Of course then someone with a 1 million+ view video and a large bill would then start complaining.. You can always host yourself but you loose the audience youtube brings.
  - danparsonson 5y ago
    "Poor giant video hosting company has to play multiple ads before, during and after every video otherwise they go broke" doesn't really work either. Having the most content available to show viewers has made them the de facto video sharing website - videos freely contributed by people who wanted to share something with the world have helped to put YT in the position where they are basically a monopoly and they are now aggressively capitalising on that. I don't believe they need to monetise everything just to keep the lights on. Ultimately though, the guy doesn't want his content monetised so he's removing it - that's his prerogative just as much as it is Youtube's for advertising however they please.
    - EugeneG 5y ago
      Not a monopoly there’s a ton of video sharing sites - like I guess peertube? Creators can walk away and bring their business elsewhere, as he did. YouTube happens to be very good at advertising your videos and driving you viewers (just like, say, NBC was good at bringing viewers to Seinfeld).
  - serf 5y ago
    no one called anyone a villain, but most will agree that having the terms of service changed out from under you after you already have hosted content/a social following/an internet 'home' is a pretty shitty thing to experience. does the means justify the ends? should this be allowed to ensure that the YT bottom line isn't red? I don't know; all I know is that the personal experience of the content creator got to such a negative point that they decided to forego all the benefits of YouTube and host elsewhere -- and that's really the only point that matters.
_wldu 5y ago
In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact. If you want more control, publish on a standard website on a standard Linux machine.
- serf 5y ago
  >In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact. In broad strokes : you're right. For the sake of a bit more nuance, i'd like to add that 'the control' isn't just given up by the user. 'The control' is promised by providers, and then slowly dwindled until some threshold is met where users are lost to competitors. YouTube became popular because it gave creators just enough independence, while handling the technical stuff for them. Now that the technical part is becoming increasingly easy to deal with, it stands to reason that YouTube must become more flexible, or lose market share. Will G/YT be flexible enough to keep everyone happy enough to exist within their walled garden? Personally, I don't think so -- and people like the parent article are proving that point by packing up and taking their data elsewhere. Discoverability is becoming less and less of an issue due to the pervasiveness of many different types and styles of social media; IMO that's YT's big advantage and I feel with anti-creator stuff like this stuff, along with YTs recommender being one of the biggest industry in-jokes on the planet -- they really squandered that advantage.
input_sh 5y ago
Mentioned in the first minute here: https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671e-49ae-91fb-93f08a236f2c https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671... He had no intention to ever monetise the channel, but with YouTube's ToS update he had to agree that YouTube can monetise his channel even if he doesn't want it to. Considering he's basically forced to serve ads he has no control over and he does not earn a cent from it, I'd say "lost sovereignty" holds true.
- izacus 5y ago
  Was his expectation that YouTube would cover his hosting, encoding and bandwidth costs for free forever? I wonder what his backup plan is and where will he host the videos now. (It's still kind of wierd that YouTube doesn't support simply paying for their hosting.)
  - doublejay1999 5y ago
    this is the shittiest take. does youtube expect him to keep giving them content free forever ? without contributing to his production costs ?
    - EugeneG 5y ago
      They don’t expect that. They create an incentive structure to attract creators they want at the price they want and are ok I assume if others choose to not work with them. It’s not like YouTube called him and said “hey what the heck man, why did you stop uploading?”
    - ikiris 5y ago
      Which do you think costs more? I can tell you the marginal value for most all content is basically zero. The hosting costs aren't.
      - doublejay1999 5y ago
        it obviously costs more to produce content than it does to host and stream it. That's why you watch a show costing 10 millions dollars per episode, for 10 bucks a month.
tyingq 5y ago
A transcript of his video "I'm leaving YouTube", that I pulled from the closed caption file[1] https://pastebin.com/8ZTwaJEm https://pastebin.com/8ZTwaJEm [1] https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/lazy-static/video-captions/e123625b-bfa8-463b-bb69-984b4a13c4dc-en.vtt https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/lazy-static/video-caption...

elliekelly 5y ago

He posted a video[1] about why he left. It sounds like YouTube updated terms of service that required him to allow YouTube to put ads in his videos and he never wanted to monetize his work, he’s making the videos to share information, not to make money for him or anyone else. [1]https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671e-49ae-91fb-93f08a236f2c https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671...

RL_Quine 5y ago
Evil company decides not to take a loss on hosting probably zettabytes of video? It's really hard to paint youtube as the villain here and keep a straight face.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  nobody called anyone a villain. he simply didn’t like the change and moved to a new service. basic free market forces working well and we can all be happy about it
- acomjean 5y ago
  Thats a good point. Hosting isn't free, so someone is going to have to pay some cost. Even if the original goal was just to share information and not profit, there are some costs associated with running a site. One wonders if youtube had an option for you to pay them to host videos for you without ads, if that would be popular. Of course then someone with a 1 million+ view video and a large bill would then start complaining.. You can always host yourself but you loose the audience youtube brings.
- danparsonson 5y ago
  "Poor giant video hosting company has to play multiple ads before, during and after every video otherwise they go broke" doesn't really work either. Having the most content available to show viewers has made them the de facto video sharing website - videos freely contributed by people who wanted to share something with the world have helped to put YT in the position where they are basically a monopoly and they are now aggressively capitalising on that. I don't believe they need to monetise everything just to keep the lights on. Ultimately though, the guy doesn't want his content monetised so he's removing it - that's his prerogative just as much as it is Youtube's for advertising however they please.
  - EugeneG 5y ago
    Not a monopoly there’s a ton of video sharing sites - like I guess peertube? Creators can walk away and bring their business elsewhere, as he did. YouTube happens to be very good at advertising your videos and driving you viewers (just like, say, NBC was good at bringing viewers to Seinfeld).
- serf 5y ago
  no one called anyone a villain, but most will agree that having the terms of service changed out from under you after you already have hosted content/a social following/an internet 'home' is a pretty shitty thing to experience. does the means justify the ends? should this be allowed to ensure that the YT bottom line isn't red? I don't know; all I know is that the personal experience of the content creator got to such a negative point that they decided to forego all the benefits of YouTube and host elsewhere -- and that's really the only point that matters.

_wldu 5y ago

In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact. If you want more control, publish on a standard website on a standard Linux machine.

serf 5y ago
>In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact. In broad strokes : you're right. For the sake of a bit more nuance, i'd like to add that 'the control' isn't just given up by the user. 'The control' is promised by providers, and then slowly dwindled until some threshold is met where users are lost to competitors. YouTube became popular because it gave creators just enough independence, while handling the technical stuff for them. Now that the technical part is becoming increasingly easy to deal with, it stands to reason that YouTube must become more flexible, or lose market share. Will G/YT be flexible enough to keep everyone happy enough to exist within their walled garden? Personally, I don't think so -- and people like the parent article are proving that point by packing up and taking their data elsewhere. Discoverability is becoming less and less of an issue due to the pervasiveness of many different types and styles of social media; IMO that's YT's big advantage and I feel with anti-creator stuff like this stuff, along with YTs recommender being one of the biggest industry in-jokes on the planet -- they really squandered that advantage.

input_sh 5y ago

Mentioned in the first minute here: https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671e-49ae-91fb-93f08a236f2c https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671... He had no intention to ever monetise the channel, but with YouTube's ToS update he had to agree that YouTube can monetise his channel even if he doesn't want it to. Considering he's basically forced to serve ads he has no control over and he does not earn a cent from it, I'd say "lost sovereignty" holds true.

izacus 5y ago
Was his expectation that YouTube would cover his hosting, encoding and bandwidth costs for free forever? I wonder what his backup plan is and where will he host the videos now. (It's still kind of wierd that YouTube doesn't support simply paying for their hosting.)
- doublejay1999 5y ago
  this is the shittiest take. does youtube expect him to keep giving them content free forever ? without contributing to his production costs ?
  - EugeneG 5y ago
    They don’t expect that. They create an incentive structure to attract creators they want at the price they want and are ok I assume if others choose to not work with them. It’s not like YouTube called him and said “hey what the heck man, why did you stop uploading?”
  - ikiris 5y ago
    Which do you think costs more? I can tell you the marginal value for most all content is basically zero. The hosting costs aren't.
    - doublejay1999 5y ago
      it obviously costs more to produce content than it does to host and stream it. That's why you watch a show costing 10 millions dollars per episode, for 10 bucks a month.

tyingq 5y ago

A transcript of his video "I'm leaving YouTube", that I pulled from the closed caption file[1] https://pastebin.com/8ZTwaJEm https://pastebin.com/8ZTwaJEm [1] https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/lazy-static/video-captions/e123625b-bfa8-463b-bb69-984b4a13c4dc-en.vtt https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/lazy-static/video-caption...