4 ms·

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

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.

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.