6 ms·

How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically in

How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?

klabb3 5y ago
Several different problems. First, we need an architectural design that folks can actually agree on. Then we need open protocols. Then we need implementations. Then we need infrastructure. Then we need to migrate existing content. Finally we need network effects. If we ever get there, I suspect it'll be through a combo between a decentralized registry core and federated and commercial gateway system (similar to VPN or usenet providers). The biggest challenges are related to identity, moderation and abuse, while appealing to a mainstream audience. "It's not the format, it's the business model."
mateo1 5y ago
The only functional model so far is patreon-like funding of independent creators.
dehrmann 5y ago
> rent-extracting, and private entity? Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.
  - donkeyd 5y ago
    > now they are extracting profit So? They're a business, what do you expect? The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
    - Mindwipe 5y ago
      Also don't be surprised that your not for profit folds very quickly. YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      Everyone replying in this manner is missing that I am discussing whether or not they are rent seeking. No one is questioning whether they are or should be making a profit. The person I replied to said they are not rent seeking, they are just seeking profit to fund operations. I claim they are rent seeking, which is according to wikipedia: "the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." No one is questioning that they are or should be making a profit, only the purpose and result of their profit seeking.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Of course they're trying to make a profit. Youtube, Google, nor Alphabet are a charity. "Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
    - CuriouslyC 5y ago
      I think advertising is evil is the sentiment, and that's not out of place in a forum that has a focus on building a better future, rather than making money any way possible.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      This thread has been a fascinating exercise in reading comprehension. I was replying to the statement "Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube." Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking". According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service. Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.
zozbot234 5y ago
> How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more Ideally, by decoupling these things from one another. There's no reason they'd have to be part of a single platform - for instance, a client (app or web) could fetch public 'likes' and/or comments referencing (or "annotating", per the relevant Web standards) a PeerTube video from Mastodon. This is already superior to what YT does.
moltke 5y ago
I'm pretty sure peertube does that, stuff like picking an instance is confusing to new users though and they get scared off.
madeofpalk 5y ago
What happens when someone uploads universally abhorrent, illegal, immoral, and harmful videos?
- hirako2000 5y ago
  that's a matter of opinion. i find YouTube filled with plenty of videos I would deem immoral, harmful, abhorrent. they remain there. and that's fine, nobody forces me to watch them.
  - madeofpalk 5y ago
    Child pornography is a "matter of opinion"? That's what I was getting at - probably the one thing we make no carve outs for as a society.
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      I have difficulties to understand opinions that tolerates child pornography. and while it is without doubt a problem, I think it would be pointing at a tree to hide the forest to discuss illegal pornographic content. what's more at stake is divergent thoughts that are curtailed by opinionated (if not politicised) authorities. Law enforcements would remain active in prosecuting illegal content publishers. this thread more specifically touches on freedom for consumers to pull DRM content somewhat gated behind official clients, and the war between copyright holders and the conscious consumers. an alternative to YouTube where publishers and viewers can more freely operate is undoubtedly a step forward, and the collateral potential consequences don't outweigh the benefits. if what you beleive in is prison to keep everyone safe, it may be exactly what's coming very fast at us if you haven't noticed.
      - madeofpalk 5y ago
        Should child pornography be removed from such a service? Regardless of law enforcement actions. After the criminals are in jail (or not), is the content just still readily available? How is it decided who removes it - who moderates the service? Technically, how is it removed?
UncleMeat 5y ago
You can't, if copyrighted content from the major media companies ends up on this product. Things that feel like anti-features on YouTube (can't watch videos with the screen off, can't download videos) are consequences of lawsuits against YouTube from ages past.
izacus 5y ago
> Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity? When you'll understand that YouTube's monetization is the reason why it's so popular (because, as opposed to other services, it's self-sustaining and, most important, profitable FOR CREATORS publishing there), you'll be closer to your answer. Competition died mostly because: - They have shit user experience that's outright broken (I'm looking at you Nebula and your portrait locked tablet apps and broken TV apps). - They don't earn enough to cover bandwidth and transcoding costs (bandwidth is VERY VERY expensive even in western world when you stream video at scale). - They don't have a simple answer for creators uploading videos on how to earn money from their creations. YouTube makes it a click (and a die roll for random demonetizations). Others don't and add friction to users as well.
snarf21 5y ago
It is an unpopular opinion but we need to change the business model. Highly tax digital advertising so that subscription/patron business models have a chance and then we start to have more aligned incentives. Right now, digital advertising is too cheap and easy to exploit.
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Until bandwidth and storage space is practically free, there's no real way to compete.
Hakashiro 5y ago
The technologies exist. The reality is YouTube bleeds money like crazy. Pretty much only huge enterprises like Google can afford to run a service like YouTube. You can try. Many have tried before and YouTube continues to be king for a reason. Good luck!

klabb3 5y ago

Several different problems. First, we need an architectural design that folks can actually agree on. Then we need open protocols. Then we need implementations. Then we need infrastructure. Then we need to migrate existing content. Finally we need network effects. If we ever get there, I suspect it'll be through a combo between a decentralized registry core and federated and commercial gateway system (similar to VPN or usenet providers). The biggest challenges are related to identity, moderation and abuse, while appealing to a mainstream audience. "It's not the format, it's the business model."

mateo1 5y ago

The only functional model so far is patreon-like funding of independent creators.

dehrmann 5y ago

> rent-extracting, and private entity? Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
I think maybe this was true five years ago, but at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising. I don’t follow their financials but I assume the site was self sufficient with far fewer ads than today, and that now they are extracting profit (rents) from their established behemoth. Of course I could be wrong.
- donkeyd 5y ago
  > now they are extracting profit So? They're a business, what do you expect? The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
  - Mindwipe 5y ago
    Also don't be surprised that your not for profit folds very quickly. YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    Everyone replying in this manner is missing that I am discussing whether or not they are rent seeking. No one is questioning whether they are or should be making a profit. The person I replied to said they are not rent seeking, they are just seeking profit to fund operations. I claim they are rent seeking, which is according to wikipedia: "the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." No one is questioning that they are or should be making a profit, only the purpose and result of their profit seeking.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Of course they're trying to make a profit. Youtube, Google, nor Alphabet are a charity. "Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    I think advertising is evil is the sentiment, and that's not out of place in a forum that has a focus on building a better future, rather than making money any way possible.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    This thread has been a fascinating exercise in reading comprehension. I was replying to the statement "Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube." Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking". According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth." That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service. Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.

zozbot234 5y ago

> How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more Ideally, by decoupling these things from one another. There's no reason they'd have to be part of a single platform - for instance, a client (app or web) could fetch public 'likes' and/or comments referencing (or "annotating", per the relevant Web standards) a PeerTube video from Mastodon. This is already superior to what YT does.

moltke 5y ago

I'm pretty sure peertube does that, stuff like picking an instance is confusing to new users though and they get scared off.

madeofpalk 5y ago

What happens when someone uploads universally abhorrent, illegal, immoral, and harmful videos?

hirako2000 5y ago
that's a matter of opinion. i find YouTube filled with plenty of videos I would deem immoral, harmful, abhorrent. they remain there. and that's fine, nobody forces me to watch them.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
  Child pornography is a "matter of opinion"? That's what I was getting at - probably the one thing we make no carve outs for as a society.
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    I have difficulties to understand opinions that tolerates child pornography. and while it is without doubt a problem, I think it would be pointing at a tree to hide the forest to discuss illegal pornographic content. what's more at stake is divergent thoughts that are curtailed by opinionated (if not politicised) authorities. Law enforcements would remain active in prosecuting illegal content publishers. this thread more specifically touches on freedom for consumers to pull DRM content somewhat gated behind official clients, and the war between copyright holders and the conscious consumers. an alternative to YouTube where publishers and viewers can more freely operate is undoubtedly a step forward, and the collateral potential consequences don't outweigh the benefits. if what you beleive in is prison to keep everyone safe, it may be exactly what's coming very fast at us if you haven't noticed.
    - madeofpalk 5y ago
      Should child pornography be removed from such a service? Regardless of law enforcement actions. After the criminals are in jail (or not), is the content just still readily available? How is it decided who removes it - who moderates the service? Technically, how is it removed?

UncleMeat 5y ago

You can't, if copyrighted content from the major media companies ends up on this product. Things that feel like anti-features on YouTube (can't watch videos with the screen off, can't download videos) are consequences of lawsuits against YouTube from ages past.

izacus 5y ago

> Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity? When you'll understand that YouTube's monetization is the reason why it's so popular (because, as opposed to other services, it's self-sustaining and, most important, profitable FOR CREATORS publishing there), you'll be closer to your answer. Competition died mostly because: - They have shit user experience that's outright broken (I'm looking at you Nebula and your portrait locked tablet apps and broken TV apps). - They don't earn enough to cover bandwidth and transcoding costs (bandwidth is VERY VERY expensive even in western world when you stream video at scale). - They don't have a simple answer for creators uploading videos on how to earn money from their creations. YouTube makes it a click (and a die roll for random demonetizations). Others don't and add friction to users as well.

snarf21 5y ago

It is an unpopular opinion but we need to change the business model. Highly tax digital advertising so that subscription/patron business models have a chance and then we start to have more aligned incentives. Right now, digital advertising is too cheap and easy to exploit.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

Until bandwidth and storage space is practically free, there's no real way to compete.

Hakashiro 5y ago

The technologies exist. The reality is YouTube bleeds money like crazy. Pretty much only huge enterprises like Google can afford to run a service like YouTube. You can try. Many have tried before and YouTube continues to be king for a reason. Good luck!