3 ms·
Why don’t creators both publish to YouTube but also publish somewhere else for archival or public access reasons, to help keep content available for outside wal
by SilverElfin 1y ago
Why don’t creators both publish to YouTube but also publish somewhere else for archival or public access reasons, to help keep content available for outside walled gardens? Is it just not important to them? Is it hosting costs? Missing out on ad revenue?
- iamflimflam1 1y agoWhere else should they be publishing to? And who is going to pay for this service? Don’t forget - most “content creators” are not technical - self hosting is not an option. And even if it were - it costs money.
- SilverElfin 1y agoI just mean some kind of public service like one of those archive sites. So they would place it into YouTube for revenue but also these other places so there’s a way to get the videos without Google being a dictatorial overlord.
- Biganon 1y agoLTT kinda do, but they're the exception, not the norm
- gmiller123456 1y agoYoutube pays them per (ad) view, and also recommends the video to more people based on how many people click on it. So giving people another way to watch it will decrease their revenue and audience.
- 1gn15 1y agoThere's no incentive for them to do so. It reduces their ad revenue, while costing more money to host it. That said, if you are a creator and you do want to do it, Peertube is a good option because it uses torrent technology to reduce your hosting costs.
- BrtByte 1y agoFor a lot of creators, YouTube is the internet