4 ms·

> Youtube was, is and will forever be for cat videos, not for serious information - or so at least the moderation policy makes it out to be. The problem isn't

> Youtube was, is and will forever be for cat videos, not for serious information - or so at least the moderation policy makes it out to be. The problem isn't the moderation policy, it's the medium. It encourages easy passive absorption of anything presented in a slick matter by people who barely know what they're talking about. Take for instance this slick video talking about VHS capture by Technology Connections, which I used to have vaguely positive feelings about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY The people on a forum with really deep knowledge on the subject have poor things to say about it: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/10059-modern-av-hdmi.html http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/10059-modern-a.... They say he only has a poor gasp of the subject, and half the time sounds like he's just reading off of Wikipedia. > There are plenty of alternative video distribution channels out there which don't have this problem, the only thing which needs to be solved is video discovery. No, those "alternative video distribution channels" are usually far worse, precisely because of that lack of moderation. Except in a very few cases (specifically some gun videos, and Serikzhan Bilash), most of the original content that has to flee to them is garbage.

the_third_wave 5y ago
The medium online video does not necessarily encourage passive absorption, that is more due to the recommendations system combined with autoplay which is tuned to keep viewers stuck to their tubes for as long as possible. Take away the recommendations and disable autoplay and what you're left with is just a way to show video content, with all the pros and cons of such. While I prefer textual content over video I know that this is not a universal and as such there certainly is a place for those videos describing how to tune a guitar, how to floss the cat and how to bake hamburger buns. As to alternative video distribution channels being "worse" than Youtube, well, yes, the average quality of the content "relegated" to alternative channels is bound to be lower than that on Youtube simply because they apply both legitimate as well as illegitimate (political, commercial or otherwise) reasons to ban content. The value of the alternative channels lies in their willingness to distribute videos which were banned for illegitimate reasons, not in their use by those who were banned from Youtube for legitimate reasons. You can simply ignore the thrash content when using these alternatives just like you (hopefully) ignore the thrash on Youtube et al.

the_third_wave 5y ago

The medium online video does not necessarily encourage passive absorption, that is more due to the recommendations system combined with autoplay which is tuned to keep viewers stuck to their tubes for as long as possible. Take away the recommendations and disable autoplay and what you're left with is just a way to show video content, with all the pros and cons of such. While I prefer textual content over video I know that this is not a universal and as such there certainly is a place for those videos describing how to tune a guitar, how to floss the cat and how to bake hamburger buns. As to alternative video distribution channels being "worse" than Youtube, well, yes, the average quality of the content "relegated" to alternative channels is bound to be lower than that on Youtube simply because they apply both legitimate as well as illegitimate (political, commercial or otherwise) reasons to ban content. The value of the alternative channels lies in their willingness to distribute videos which were banned for illegitimate reasons, not in their use by those who were banned from Youtube for legitimate reasons. You can simply ignore the thrash content when using these alternatives just like you (hopefully) ignore the thrash on Youtube et al.