7 ms·

If there was a clear alternative that’d be one thing, but there isn’t, and I suspect this creator is one of those high-quality-but-small-audience channels where

If there was a clear alternative that’d be one thing, but there isn’t, and I suspect this creator is one of those high-quality-but-small-audience channels where they don’t have enough pull to bootstrap an alternative themselves. So it seems kind of naive to say “that can only be a good thing”.

enriquto 5y ago
Ultra-famous accounts with zillions of subscribers are likely on a first-name basis with the youtube admins who cater to them. The move out of the platform will of course start from below.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Markiplier, one of those ultra famous accounts who is on a first name basis with their rep, has posted a few stories about how content gets demonitized for no reason and even his rep has no clue why and is powerless.
  - iforgotpassword 5y ago
    And still there is nothing else that gets him close in reach and monetization. Even if only one out of ten videos is monetized that's most likely still better than anything else.
- Bayart 5y ago
  Maybe Pewdiepie, but quite a few channels in the millions have hinted that getting through to a human was impossible without a Twitter campaign.
roenxi 5y ago
High-quality-but-small-audience might have an easier time than most, I suspect. To get niche content people have to be willing to trawl the internet. Still wild guesses, but I'd be worried about mid-sized channels with a lot of ambivalent viewers, not really invested, not going to swap platforms. Although how all that factors in to various monetisation strategies is complex. Anyway, the situation is really interesting. I don't think YouTube can pull off the censorship campaign that they are trying for. They're fighting some really fundamental economic forces - it is too cheap to get people a message if they want to hear it.
input_sh 5y ago
What do you mean by clear alternative? Feature parity? There's at least 10 nearly feature-compatible software out there. I can name five without looking it up: PeerTube, LBRY/Odysee, Cinnamon, Nebula (okay this one's a bit of a stretch because you can't outright sign up and post videos, you need some creator to invite you), DTube. Thing is none of them will make you YouTube money, so smaller creators don't bother, while larger ones usually just cross-post stuff, leaving no incentive for their audience to bother with the alternative.
martin_a 5y ago
> where they don’t have enough pull to bootstrap an alternative Maybe I'm thinking too easy, but what about self-hosting. Some "all inclusive" hosting with Hugo or whatever static page builder you like. That should be enough to get your content out to the masses. Throw in Disqus if you really need to, set up an RSS feed and a newsletter and let's go.
- AcerbicZero 5y ago
  Self hosting? That sounds like an unregulated place for all the people who were thrown out by those with at least some ethics left.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  For video hosting I'd go with Peertube.
  - martin_a 5y ago
    No! These networks, no matter how they work under the hood, are obviously the problem, as they are single points of failure. Run your own stuff. Most channels will not have enough visitors/viewers to kill a shared webhosting package, so there's no big deal in doing this on your own.
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Peertube is tube site software that you can run yourself. It is a way to run your own stuff. https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Curious how does the network deal with adult or censored content? If self-hosting does one need to join the network?
        betwixthewires 5y ago
betwixthewires 5y ago
Does there need to be "a clear alternative?" A video host is a video host. I don't care where I watch videos, I only care about what I'm trying to watch. I never understood this insistence that a video has to be on a certain site. The more video hosting sites there are the better.
- 0xffff2 5y ago
  YouTube provides content curation in addition to mere video hosting. In the current state, I can open up my YouTube subscriptions page and see a list of all new videos from people I'm interested in. If every video creator hosts their work on a different platform, I no longer have a one stop shop for video consumption. I subscribe to lots of people on YouTube, but there are probably only two or three that I care enough about to go check a different site for new content.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    I think curation might be one of the drivers of the problems we have nowadays, I'd prefer a host that does no curation. > If every video creator hosts their work on a different platform, I no longer have a one stop shop for video consumption. Yes you can, use an RSS reader and subscribe via RSS. This problem was solved before tube sites were even widespread, and then the UX for subscriptions devolved, primarily because these sites want to lock you in and make you feel how you do. But you can still curate your own feed and have all your video content in one feed, I do it, you just have to use RSS.
    - 0xffff2 5y ago
      I used to use RSS a decade or more ago. It always felt clumsy and half-supported at best. Perhaps you could share what RSS reader you use?
      - betwixthewires 5y ago
        Sure. On desktop I use Thunderbird, on mobile I use something called Feeder, it is a FOSS RSS/Atom feed reader with built in Webview so you can watch the video in app if you like. YouTube and Bitchute both support RSS, also Peertube has RSS built in if you watch anything self hosted using that software, as far as all the other tube sites out there I'm not sure because I don't subscribe to anyone on those sites, but I would expect that they do more than likely as RSS is still a web standard. All but Peertube I've found sort of hide syndication in some way to encourage their account based subscription because they'd rather you use that. It might take a minute when you want to subscribe on a new site you don't usually use to figure out their feed URL format. It can be a little clunky to add subscriptions I guess, but how often are you doing that? What matters more is integrating all your subscriptions into one feed, you're watching every day multiple times a day, you're not subscribing every day.

enriquto 5y ago

Ultra-famous accounts with zillions of subscribers are likely on a first-name basis with the youtube admins who cater to them. The move out of the platform will of course start from below.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Markiplier, one of those ultra famous accounts who is on a first name basis with their rep, has posted a few stories about how content gets demonitized for no reason and even his rep has no clue why and is powerless.
- iforgotpassword 5y ago
  And still there is nothing else that gets him close in reach and monetization. Even if only one out of ten videos is monetized that's most likely still better than anything else.
Bayart 5y ago
Maybe Pewdiepie, but quite a few channels in the millions have hinted that getting through to a human was impossible without a Twitter campaign.

roenxi 5y ago

High-quality-but-small-audience might have an easier time than most, I suspect. To get niche content people have to be willing to trawl the internet. Still wild guesses, but I'd be worried about mid-sized channels with a lot of ambivalent viewers, not really invested, not going to swap platforms. Although how all that factors in to various monetisation strategies is complex. Anyway, the situation is really interesting. I don't think YouTube can pull off the censorship campaign that they are trying for. They're fighting some really fundamental economic forces - it is too cheap to get people a message if they want to hear it.

input_sh 5y ago

What do you mean by clear alternative? Feature parity? There's at least 10 nearly feature-compatible software out there. I can name five without looking it up: PeerTube, LBRY/Odysee, Cinnamon, Nebula (okay this one's a bit of a stretch because you can't outright sign up and post videos, you need some creator to invite you), DTube. Thing is none of them will make you YouTube money, so smaller creators don't bother, while larger ones usually just cross-post stuff, leaving no incentive for their audience to bother with the alternative.

martin_a 5y ago

> where they don’t have enough pull to bootstrap an alternative Maybe I'm thinking too easy, but what about self-hosting. Some "all inclusive" hosting with Hugo or whatever static page builder you like. That should be enough to get your content out to the masses. Throw in Disqus if you really need to, set up an RSS feed and a newsletter and let's go.

AcerbicZero 5y ago
Self hosting? That sounds like an unregulated place for all the people who were thrown out by those with at least some ethics left.
betwixthewires 5y ago
For video hosting I'd go with Peertube.
- martin_a 5y ago
  No! These networks, no matter how they work under the hood, are obviously the problem, as they are single points of failure. Run your own stuff. Most channels will not have enough visitors/viewers to kill a shared webhosting package, so there's no big deal in doing this on your own.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Peertube is tube site software that you can run yourself. It is a way to run your own stuff. https://joinpeertube.org/ https://joinpeertube.org/
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Curious how does the network deal with adult or censored content? If self-hosting does one need to join the network?
      - betwixthewires 5y ago

betwixthewires 5y ago

Does there need to be "a clear alternative?" A video host is a video host. I don't care where I watch videos, I only care about what I'm trying to watch. I never understood this insistence that a video has to be on a certain site. The more video hosting sites there are the better.

0xffff2 5y ago
YouTube provides content curation in addition to mere video hosting. In the current state, I can open up my YouTube subscriptions page and see a list of all new videos from people I'm interested in. If every video creator hosts their work on a different platform, I no longer have a one stop shop for video consumption. I subscribe to lots of people on YouTube, but there are probably only two or three that I care enough about to go check a different site for new content.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I think curation might be one of the drivers of the problems we have nowadays, I'd prefer a host that does no curation. > If every video creator hosts their work on a different platform, I no longer have a one stop shop for video consumption. Yes you can, use an RSS reader and subscribe via RSS. This problem was solved before tube sites were even widespread, and then the UX for subscriptions devolved, primarily because these sites want to lock you in and make you feel how you do. But you can still curate your own feed and have all your video content in one feed, I do it, you just have to use RSS.
  - 0xffff2 5y ago
    I used to use RSS a decade or more ago. It always felt clumsy and half-supported at best. Perhaps you could share what RSS reader you use?
    - betwixthewires 5y ago
      Sure. On desktop I use Thunderbird, on mobile I use something called Feeder, it is a FOSS RSS/Atom feed reader with built in Webview so you can watch the video in app if you like. YouTube and Bitchute both support RSS, also Peertube has RSS built in if you watch anything self hosted using that software, as far as all the other tube sites out there I'm not sure because I don't subscribe to anyone on those sites, but I would expect that they do more than likely as RSS is still a web standard. All but Peertube I've found sort of hide syndication in some way to encourage their account based subscription because they'd rather you use that. It might take a minute when you want to subscribe on a new site you don't usually use to figure out their feed URL format. It can be a little clunky to add subscriptions I guess, but how often are you doing that? What matters more is integrating all your subscriptions into one feed, you're watching every day multiple times a day, you're not subscribing every day.