3 ms·

Mentioned in the first minute here: https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/videos/watch/6b779810-671e-49ae-91fb-93f08a236f2c https://peertube.linuxrocks.online/vide

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.
    - jazzyjackson 5y ago
      What about the marginal cost to host a channel that gets < 1000 views per year?
- exhilaration 5y ago
  I can't speak for him, but yes, I was (foolishly) expecting free YouTube hosting forever without ads because that's what they've always provided. I would think that enough YouTube content makers opt into ads and monetization to cover the costs for those of us that don't want it.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  One possibility would be for YouTube to take a larger cut from content creators that do monetize, and the leave the unmonetized content alone.
crazygringo 5y ago
What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free, not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience? "Sovereignty" is a bizarre word here. It's a business deal. Nobody's ever "sovereign" in any exchange, it's either a good deal or not. If he wants to pay for hosting himself, then go ahead, but no need to act like it's a question of "sovereignty". Nobody's a king here.
- phkahler 5y ago
  >> What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free, not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience? Lets turn that around. YouTube is a huge content provider that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE and they feel that they can "monetize" it any way they see fit. There needs to be some balance. If enough people leave like this, there will be a credible competitor to YouTube and they'll never get those people back. Better yet, self hosting and federated services will start to become a thing and that could be an existential threat to Google itself. But sure, they are free to do what they like on their platform. Doesn't mean it's always the best thing to do.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    > that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE Not true. Creators can get paid for their video views and some make a living at it. Some of the content Google doesn't pay anything for, but tons of it (and most of the popular stuff) Google pays for on a per-view basis. It's not free to Google. > There needs to be some balance. That already is the balance, Google paying creators for the popular content.
- upofadown 5y ago
  The business deal used to be good. Now there is a sovereignty problem. The free part is not relevant here. We can't help that Google is having problems monetizing a service by first providing an acceptable service and then later changing the terms of the deal. Perhaps their business model is unrealistic.

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.
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    What about the marginal cost to host a channel that gets < 1000 views per year?
exhilaration 5y ago
I can't speak for him, but yes, I was (foolishly) expecting free YouTube hosting forever without ads because that's what they've always provided. I would think that enough YouTube content makers opt into ads and monetization to cover the costs for those of us that don't want it.
briefcomment 5y ago
One possibility would be for YouTube to take a larger cut from content creators that do monetize, and the leave the unmonetized content alone.

crazygringo 5y ago

What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free, not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience? "Sovereignty" is a bizarre word here. It's a business deal. Nobody's ever "sovereign" in any exchange, it's either a good deal or not. If he wants to pay for hosting himself, then go ahead, but no need to act like it's a question of "sovereignty". Nobody's a king here.

phkahler 5y ago
>> What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free, not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience? Lets turn that around. YouTube is a huge content provider that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE and they feel that they can "monetize" it any way they see fit. There needs to be some balance. If enough people leave like this, there will be a credible competitor to YouTube and they'll never get those people back. Better yet, self hosting and federated services will start to become a thing and that could be an existential threat to Google itself. But sure, they are free to do what they like on their platform. Doesn't mean it's always the best thing to do.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  > that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE Not true. Creators can get paid for their video views and some make a living at it. Some of the content Google doesn't pay anything for, but tons of it (and most of the popular stuff) Google pays for on a per-view basis. It's not free to Google. > There needs to be some balance. That already is the balance, Google paying creators for the popular content.
upofadown 5y ago
The business deal used to be good. Now there is a sovereignty problem. The free part is not relevant here. We can't help that Google is having problems monetizing a service by first providing an acceptable service and then later changing the terms of the deal. Perhaps their business model is unrealistic.