3 ms·

Your analogy doesn't match my statement. I am saying there should be a canonical location for what you create that is on a URL that you own. Everything else is

by kepano 2y ago

Your analogy doesn't match my statement. I am saying there should be a canonical location for what you create that is on a URL that you own. Everything else is distribution. You built a house on someone else's land, and then they tore it down. Build a house on your own land, as small as that land may be. From there you can create roads, bridges, tunnels to other people's land. On the web land is infinite. You can make your own land.

janalsncm 2y ago
Again, I am not against backups but that doesn’t solve the actual problem. The problem isn’t losing the files, it is losing a reliable source of income. Putting the videos on Vimeo/S3 bucket/some random website doesn’t solve that problem. People create videos as a full-time job, which is only possible because of the traffic YouTube brings. Also I think the analogy is pretty solid because it clearly illustrates the emergent benefits of being on a large centralized platform rather than a random URL. Land might be infinite but attention and clicks are not.
- kepano 2y ago
  It is certainly helpful to hang up a shingle where all the people are — the mall, the town square, the marketplace — but your patrons should know that a bridge exists to your flagship, your headquarters, your farm, your factory of ideas.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jjk166 2y ago
    If a farmer stops showing up to a farmers market, no one is going to go to their farm for their specific carrots when there are other carrot farmers at the market. Even if they have the best carrots, that doesn't mean their carrots are sufficiently better to justify the added hassle. If their livelihood comes from the customers at the farmer's market, they need to keep their stall at the market.
    - kepano 2y ago
      Sure. This aligns with my original point. A farmer owns their land (mostly). The farm is the farmer's canonical source for their product. Farmers don't typically rely on a single farmer's market to sell their product, they participate in many markets, sell wholesale, sell from their farm, and might also have a direct-to-consumer option where they can ship beyond their locality. Create once, publish everywhere — your land is the canonical source. Markets are for distribution.
      - janalsncm 2y ago
        A business doesn’t stop being viable only once every source of income is stamped out. It stops being viable when enough of it is gone, because people weigh continuing the business against the opportunity cost of doing anything else. Also, many creators already are publishing “everywhere”. YouTube is simply the most profitable. If YouTube income goes away, that ends the business, whether or not it can technically be found elsewhere.
      - jjk166 2y ago
        No, it goes directly against your original point. A farmer owning their own land is no protection against losing access to its customers. In this analogy, there is only one farmer's market that anyone shows up to. In the real world many farmers may have alternatives, but that is a product of an entire industry spending centuries collectively cultivating those multiple distribution channels.

by kepano 2y ago

janalsncm 2y ago

Again, I am not against backups but that doesn’t solve the actual problem. The problem isn’t losing the files, it is losing a reliable source of income. Putting the videos on Vimeo/S3 bucket/some random website doesn’t solve that problem. People create videos as a full-time job, which is only possible because of the traffic YouTube brings. Also I think the analogy is pretty solid because it clearly illustrates the emergent benefits of being on a large centralized platform rather than a random URL. Land might be infinite but attention and clicks are not.

kepano 2y ago
It is certainly helpful to hang up a shingle where all the people are — the mall, the town square, the marketplace — but your patrons should know that a bridge exists to your flagship, your headquarters, your farm, your factory of ideas.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jjk166 2y ago
  If a farmer stops showing up to a farmers market, no one is going to go to their farm for their specific carrots when there are other carrot farmers at the market. Even if they have the best carrots, that doesn't mean their carrots are sufficiently better to justify the added hassle. If their livelihood comes from the customers at the farmer's market, they need to keep their stall at the market.
  - kepano 2y ago
    Sure. This aligns with my original point. A farmer owns their land (mostly). The farm is the farmer's canonical source for their product. Farmers don't typically rely on a single farmer's market to sell their product, they participate in many markets, sell wholesale, sell from their farm, and might also have a direct-to-consumer option where they can ship beyond their locality. Create once, publish everywhere — your land is the canonical source. Markets are for distribution.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      A business doesn’t stop being viable only once every source of income is stamped out. It stops being viable when enough of it is gone, because people weigh continuing the business against the opportunity cost of doing anything else. Also, many creators already are publishing “everywhere”. YouTube is simply the most profitable. If YouTube income goes away, that ends the business, whether or not it can technically be found elsewhere.
    - jjk166 2y ago
      No, it goes directly against your original point. A farmer owning their own land is no protection against losing access to its customers. In this analogy, there is only one farmer's market that anyone shows up to. In the real world many farmers may have alternatives, but that is a product of an entire industry spending centuries collectively cultivating those multiple distribution channels.