[HN Gopher] Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
___________________________________________________________________
Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
Author : mikesabbagh
Score : 157 points
Date : 2021-03-07 20:39 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| aninuth wrote:
| Here I thought it was because of Squarespace...
| benbristow wrote:
| Was expecting that as well haha
| jcims wrote:
| it wasn't that long ago that it would be unusual for somebody to
| publish all of their videos on YouTube rather than their own
| site, And when he did it was to save money/performance, not for
| the network effects of the platform.
| john11johng wrote:
| I don't really see what they've done that Patreon/Vimeo do.
| Youtubers will still be reliant
| GNU_James wrote:
| >linking to bbc without using archive.is Son...
| madprops wrote:
| Peertube would work nicely for high traffic videos, since the
| data transfer can be shared among viewers
| https://joinpeertube.org/
| dalbasal wrote:
| This article is a little on the surface level, but it's true.
|
| People were screaming about where platforms and digital
| sharecropping was headed all along... and we're here now.
| Youtube, which is basically digital free-to-air is even more
| centralised than old free to air.
|
| Youtube really is an extreme situation. They really dominate a
| whole medium single handedly and youtubers have shockingly little
| power in the whole thing. There either needs to be some
| neutrality, competition or youtubers need to organize somehow...
| unionize even. Trying to have a relationship with audiences that
| doesn't run through youtube won't work for most channels... even
| ones with millions of views.
|
| I always expected a porn company to come in and compete with
| youtube at some point. They have the infrastructure. I've also
| been surprised at how restricted youtube manage to be, and still
| succeed... just the skin censorship if nothing else.
| um_ya wrote:
| There needs to be "content as a protocol" in the same way email
| is.
|
| If I don't like one email provider, I can always move to a
| different provider without losing access to all the user's that
| remain there.
|
| If I could make a Facebook post and have it's content propagate
| to other providers, websites would act more like UI filters
| rather than gatekeepers.
| kiwidrew wrote:
| That content protocol is called HTTP and the service
| discovery protocol is called DNS. I know that it's a bit
| cliche to say that these days, but acquiring a domain name
| (either directly from a TLD registrar or indirectly through
| e.g. a DynDNS provider) and pointing it at a webhost is what
| allows content publishers to "mint" their very own globally
| unique URLs. Any consumers that are equipped with a suitable
| user agent can then plug that URL into their browser and view
| that publisher's content.
|
| Now let's be serious, there are numerous barriers that stand
| in the way of "normal" users that want to escape the evil
| platforms. Why not direct our ire at the _real_ problem: Why
| Johnny Still Can 't Host a Website!
|
| And if we fix that, perhaps we can move on to Why Johnny
| Can't Get Any Visitors (Because Google Won't Index It) and
| Why Johnny's Visitors Don't Receive His Updates (Because
| Google and Mozilla Killed RSS).
| dfcowell wrote:
| This sounds like ActivityPub?
| simias wrote:
| It's just incredibly hard to compete with Youtube. In a way
| that's Google's greatest achievement: they convinced everybody
| that they're entitled to host and stream 4K videos forever not
| only for free, but the creators get a share of the ad revenue
| despite fronting none of the hosting costs. It's an incredibly
| good deal. The amount of infrastructure and human resources
| required to merely keep a system like Youtube running is mind
| boggling.
|
| That makes people reasonably annoyed when Youtube decides to
| semi-arbitrarily pull the plug on a channel, but it also means
| that competition is very hard. If a competitor decides to start
| charging for hosting or streaming, they're doomed to be niche.
| vl wrote:
| And this is why Google needs to be split up. No other
| enterprise can burn so many billions of dollars for so many
| years to corner the market.
|
| Google uses profits from search to napalm everything remotely
| looking like a threat.
| random5634 wrote:
| Does google make or lose money on youtube? Based on the
| number of ads I see, I'd imagine they break even?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Because they are finally learning that existing on someone else's
| platform sucks. Much better to get your own domain which is
| actually property registered to your name and can't be taken away
| from you because you offended some advertiser.
| walshemj wrote:
| Its normal for podcasters (which youtubers are) to have a site
| that can host at least a show page if not a merch store
| ghaff wrote:
| The difference is that podcasters are typically hosting their
| own files anyway, handling their own advertising (possibly
| through networks), and the platforms are just discovery
| mechanisms. Whereas YouTube is taking care of the more
| expensive hosting, the advertising, and the discovery--for
| better or worse.
| walshemj wrote:
| Not normally your hosting on libsyn and syndicating and
| audio shows and video are just different types of show.
|
| What strikes me as do that people still use twitch with its
| disappearing content and crap discovery - and these are
| shows who have major sponsors FFS.
| cma wrote:
| >But Google-owned YouTube gets most episodes of Linus Tech Tips
| a week late.
|
| Twitch set things up so to monetize as a partner you have to
| give them 24 hour exclusivity, giving some extra teeth to their
| platform lockin through discovery.
|
| This isn't like exclusive to big Twitch celebrities either, its
| anyone big enough to want any level of monetization.
| celticninja wrote:
| Could you still use YouTube for hosting with embedded videos
| and then switch to self hosted if YouTube kicked you off? Would
| embedding videos mean you can't monetise them?
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| Discoverability provided by someone else's platform is a very
| big boon, however.
|
| Having one's own website is a luxury for the big man, the
| little man aspiring to be big one day has no choice but to
| kneel for "what he calls his "benevolent overlord"".
| bawolff wrote:
| Although if your goal is to actually make money, offending
| advertisers on your own domaim isnt going to work out well for
| you.
| jasode wrote:
| _> Because they are finally learning that existing on someone
| else's platform sucks. Much better to get your own domain
| [...]_
|
| A lot of people already know they're the less powerful economic
| actor on Youtube platform. Regardless, people upload videos to
| Youtube instead of their own domain because of _tradeoffs_.
|
| For unknown creators with no audience, Youtube doesn't suck (in
| comparison to hosting videos on personal domain) because:
|
| (1) you don't have the money to pay for variable hosting
| bandwidth costs
|
| (2) you don't have any business relationships with advertisers
| to monetize which helps with (1)
|
| (3) you have no network effect platform recommending your
| videos (e.g. repair smartphones and drones) to audiences of
| like-minded channels such as Linus Tech Tips -- which helps
| with (2)
|
| There is a _timeline_ that creators can 't avoid to build
| financial/platform independence and leverage. _Today_ , Linus
| can realistically host videos on his Floatplane alternative
| because he _already used Youtube_ to build his 13 million
| subscribers. He also already built his own advertiser
| relationships to embed _native ads with him as spokesperson_
| outside of Youtube pre-roll and mid-rolls. In contrast, it 's
| quite a different challenge for him to start in 2008 with his
| own Floatplane.com domain and build an audience of 13 million
| outside of Youtube.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Besides FloatPlane, other streaming websites that educational
| channels upload content to are nebula [1] and I think
| curiosity stream [2].
|
| [1] https://watchnebula.com/
|
| [2] https://curiositystream.com/
| TazeTSchnitzel wrote:
| Nebula and CuriosityStream have some sort of cross-
| promotion sponsorship deal going on but I think they're
| completely separate services and it's only Nebula that has
| like, youtubers on it.
| loudmax wrote:
| I got a subscription to Curiosity Stream with Nebula
| bundled in. While Curiosity Stream has original content, as
| far as I can tell all of the Nebula stuff is also available
| on YouTube. So as a Nebula customer the only real benefit
| is watching content without ads. This is well and good, but
| ads aside, Youtube is simply a more convenient platform.
| There's less outright garbage on Nebula, and that's a good
| thing because the search function and categories are hit
| and miss. Compared to Youtube, the keyboard controls are
| janky and there are no comments (arguably more of a feature
| than a shortcoming), so no real way to engage with the
| content creators.
|
| Having said that I think I paid under $20 for a year's
| subscription for the bundle. At this rate it's cheap enough
| to be worthwhile even if you only watch a few hours of
| content per month. And I do hope these folks can make
| Nebula's business model work, there's some worthwhile stuff
| in there.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| yeah, like so many ISVs build their software on top of Windows
| and slowly losing market share when Microsoft decided to get
| into their space like the Office suite.
|
| i remember using Lotus 123 on my dad's laptop. Lotus was the
| king at the time and Microsoft kill them slowly. if i'm not
| mistaking Microsoft with hold Win32 api or something that make
| Microsoft's own Office software run faster.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Reminds me of these articles.
|
| http://www.paulgraham.com/road.html
|
| https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-
| lost...
|
| > If you want to write desktop software now you do it on
| Microsoft's terms, calling their APIs and working around
| their buggy OS.
|
| > And if you manage to write something that takes off, you
| may find that you were merely doing market research for
| Microsoft.
|
| I simply don't understand why anyone would ever choose to put
| themselves in such a disadvantageous position.
| celticninja wrote:
| This is what Amazon is doing now, find a product that sells
| well and they will start selling it, cheaper than you and
| probably prioritising their own product listing over yours.
|
| Apple have been doing it with Apps since the iPhone
| started, first it was jailbreak apps and then any app
| became fairgame.
| gist wrote:
| > they are finally learning that existing on someone else's
| platform sucks
|
| Suttons Law applies 'because that's where the money (ie
| audience) is'.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Sutton
| guerrilla wrote:
| If they don't want to end up on islands that nobody ever visits
| then they better start thinking about getting together and
| starting cooperatives or non-profits to host and list themselves.
| dang wrote:
| All: please let's try to avoid repeating the generic discussion
| about how being on someone else's platform leaves you vulnerable
| to someone else. It's not wrong, of course, but it's been
| repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation.
|
| The goal on HN is curious conversation. Curiosity likes diffs
| [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a
| new place rather than an old place.
|
| The easiest way to do this is to respond to the specific new
| information in an article. As a nudge in that direction, I've
| swapped a different interrogative pronoun into the title, and
| have downweighted the generic subthreads which were rising to the
| top like bloated balloons and crowding out more interesting
| discussion (as typically happens in these cases).
|
| You don't only have to react to the specific new information in
| an article. Whimsical tangents and reactions are also ok. Just
| ask yourself if it's expected or unexpected [4]. Prefer the
| unexpected.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| [1]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| [2]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
|
| [3]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
|
| [4]
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
| christkv wrote:
| Now let's bring back RSS so we can subscribe.
| simias wrote:
| I think that's a great decision. Many people like to complain
| about Youtube and its policies and its algorithms but it's simply
| very hard to compete with it. Its offering is really
| unparalleled.
|
| Hopefully these creators will manage to carve enough of a niche
| to create healthy competition, especially with a business model
| that doesn't rely entirely on ad revenue. It's going to be very
| hard though, making money from video hosting is a very difficult
| thing to do.
| a_hard_time wrote:
| This is a lesson that YouTubers need to learn far earlier. I know
| a number of creators with relatively small audiences (under
| 50,000 subscribers on YouTube) who earn six figure incomes
| because they properly monetise. Even with the massive pay-outs
| from sponsor spots in videos, content creators fail to recognise
| the true value of their relationship with their audience.
|
| It is easier than ever to accept payment directly from an
| audience in exchange for access to premium content or products.
| It isn't for everyone - but if their goal is to make a business
| out of their content, it should be one of the first steps taken.
| g42gregory wrote:
| I did not even know that Linus had his own site. Fantastic. I
| won't be watching his videos on Youtube anymore! Hopefully,
| everyone I watch will have their own websites, so that I don't
| have to visit Youtube.
| simongr3dal wrote:
| If only there was some kind of really simple syndication so I
| didn't have to visit 40 different sites to check if my favorite
| video creators have released anything new.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Fun fact for those who watch videos by creators who haven't
| moved off of YouTube yet: YouTube channels expose RSS feeds
| of uploads and you can watch videos directly without ads via
| youtube-dl automatically using MPV[1].
|
| [1] https://mpv.io/installation/
| crocodiletears wrote:
| Youtube will restrict your IP if you do this enough. I
| can't say I lost too much value when it happened, but it's
| been obnoxious having to go to the main site on my mobile
| to answer a battery of captchas every time I want to watch
| a video.
| 1000mA wrote:
| RSS feed for videos?
| Franciscouzo wrote:
| Is this sarcasm? RSS has been a thing for years.
| sodality2 wrote:
| RSS stands for really simple syndication, so yes, sarcasm
| simias wrote:
| You comment made me realize that if it becomes reality RSS
| might finally make a much needed comeback. You'll just poll
| various decentralized website to find updates for content you
| actually want. Aaaah, now you got my hopes up.
|
| If you had told me in 2005 that'd I'd become nostalgic for
| Flash-ridden, PHP backed, IE6-compatibilized internet I
| wouldn't have believed you, and yet here we are.
| graeme wrote:
| I follow CGP Grey's stuff and it's been interesting and
| instructive to see how he diversified.
|
| * His Youtube channel is his main platform
|
| * However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and
| you can also have videos delivered there
|
| * He also earns income from a podcast, Cortex
|
| * The Podcast has its own brand of sellable things, currently
| journals and Tshirts
|
| * He had a second podcast, hello internet, currently on hiatus.
| If ever something went catastrophically wrong with youtube this
| could be reactivated via the feed
|
| * He has a large email list which he uses to reach people
| directly and drive traffic to videos if people request these
| updates
|
| * He is also prominent on twitter etc and maintains secondary
| youtube channels, useful if main one taken down
|
| * He runs a large subreddit for his following
|
| So it is layers and layers of redundancy, built on a mix of other
| platforms and also two he controls directly (email and rss)
|
| Still faces a youtube risk but it would take a an earthquake
| across platforms to truly wreck his income streams.
|
| As someone who runs an online business and follows him it's been
| impressive to watch how diversified he has made his comms
| channels.
| vl wrote:
| CGP Grey is strange, so to say. He effectively abandoned Hello
| Internet. They once mentioned that they have 900K subs. Grey
| fully controlled HI, and it was way more popular than Cortex.
| If he wants to diversify so much abandoning project like this
| just doesn't make sense.
|
| Also he has no basic decency to announce cancelation and left
| Tims hanging, for many of whom it was the podcast.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Also he has a channel on Nebula, a streaming service set up as
| a clear hedge against YouTube doing bad things.
|
| He was one of the driving forces behind Nebula, but I believe
| he is no longer involved in running it.
| simias wrote:
| > However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and
| you can also have videos delivered there
|
| Did he break that down publicly or do you get your info from
| elsewhere? I've always been curious to know what a typical high
| profile youtuber income flow looks like, and how much they're
| really tied to Youtube.
| macspoofing wrote:
| Why wouldn't you? It's becoming increasingly clear that you
| cannot trust your web presence (and by extension, your business)
| to one or two social media companies ... though that should have
| been obvious in hindsight.
|
| And I don't want to hear anything about any startup 'disrupting'
| decentralized tech like the web, RSS (and by extension Podcasts),
| or email.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _And I don 't want to hear anything about any startup
| 'disrupting' decentralized tech like the web, RSS (and by
| extension Podcasts), or email._
|
| My take is this: whenever I see a startup being described as
| "disrupting" some market, I interpret it in the other sense of
| the word: disruption, as in the effect of a disruptor, a
| fictional energy weapon used predominantly by the main villains
| of Star Trek franchise, Klingons and Romulans.
| smoldesu wrote:
| >"We refuse to be an accidental vehicle for right-wing, neo-Nazi
| propaganda. And it's really easy for fringe platforms to turn
| into that if you leave the doors open," he says.
|
| Kudos where it's due for fighting fascism and all that jazz, but
| it does raise a pretty large concern: where do people draw the
| line for this stuff? A private platform like that can ultimately
| decide which videos they want to accept and which they want to
| reject, which really defeats the purpose of making your own
| platform in the first place. It doesn't matter if there's no
| content aggregation algos, since everyone consumes a homogeneous
| slurry of videos. Instead of preventing gatekeeping in the first
| place, they just changed who can open the gate.
|
| I don't think I'll ever be very interested in a platform like
| Nebula, and I'm really only tangentially interested in
| Floatplane. YouTube will always be a dominant market because it's
| free and offers a functional user experience. Even if half of the
| people watching YouTube videos got a Nebula subscription, they're
| still going to be using YouTube alongside it. As long as that
| YouTube audience exists, people will continue to capitalize it.
| As long as the two platforms compete, they'll be in a constant
| struggle for power over their viewers. It's the definition of a
| lose-lose situation.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| so now what? Instead of millions of channels competing on one
| very good and easily accessible site, designed to show videos,
| they will compete on a much larger scale, with far bulkier
| channels on a site that displays other things as well. The
| punchline is that both sites are controlled by the same company.
| I can predict that exactly nothing will be gained by this, except
| the flooding of internet by many more videos.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Define "very good" You mean we get more websites? Oh my god!
| What if the internet has too many websites! Whatever will we
| do?! If only we had a way to crawl websites and make them into
| some kind of list for searching, like some kind of engine for
| search.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| you misunderstood me. a quick google search reveals that
| YouTube uses 15% of internet traffic. You suggest getting rid
| of YouTube and putting 15% extra workload onto google. you
| think that won't be an issue?
|
| as for the "very good" part, yes, youtube is extremely
| successful at aggregating and displaying useful videos. It is
| also extremely good at searching through its library and
| displaying individual users useful videos. Google is far less
| effective at this, of course. Also, replacing channels with
| individual websites will vastly increase the internet
| traffic, not just a minor surge.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification!
|
| I disagree on youtube being very good at its job, however
| that is a very subjective assessment.
|
| I think as it stands now, you are correct, but I believe
| these sites will give rise to more decentralized video
| sharing infrastructure as people slowly see the need to
| control their own destinies.
| sjg007 wrote:
| I think the question us hackers should think about is not about
| how do you beat youtube? But how do you make it irrelevant.
| Twitch was one answer. TikTok is another.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| Because they are finally learning that all it takes to destroy
| their business is an algorithm glitch, or having 'wrong'
| political views, or just falling on the wrong side of an
| overzealous moderator.
|
| When you use someone else's platform you are completely dependent
| on the owner of the platform, and being dependent on something
| you don't control is a huge business risk.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| Even if you keep up with what's politically correct, your old
| content can become increasingly unfavorable. You can get
| railroaded for something you said 10 years ago that was
| seemingly alright at the time. I cringe at myself 10 years ago.
| xyst wrote:
| thankfully I never recorded my cod:black ops sessions :)
| hobofan wrote:
| And how is that different on any other platform?
| [deleted]
| sithlord wrote:
| Youtube could easily just obliterate a channel today, for
| some video posted 10 years ago if they deem it bad enough.
| Doubt if you had your own platform you'd delete yourself
| for something cringe you said 10 years ago
| hobofan wrote:
| The general "danger" of old videos comes more from people
| digging up what was said and causing a shitstorm because
| of it, rather than Youtube themselves going out of their
| way to delete channels because of old videos. If people
| want to dig through your old videos and want to cause a
| shitstorm, self-hosting isn't going to protect you.
| katsura wrote:
| Yes, but most people don't build their own server farms,
| don't have their own internet cable, so basically there
| is always some company in the middle that could easily
| cancel you.
| gsich wrote:
| It's much harder if you have actual humans on the other
| side.
| dvfjsdhgfv wrote:
| > don't have their own internet cable
|
| Owning cable doesn't help much as this cable sooner or
| later needs to be connected to some router that doesn't
| belong to you. A better solution is to host in a country
| where political correctness is much weaker than in the
| West.
| user-the-name wrote:
| What "wrong" political views are those?
| gsich wrote:
| Youtube disabled monetization on COVID-19 videos last year.
| (has been reenabled) This lead some Youtubers to using
| alternate words for that because the automated system could
| target your video.
| konjin wrote:
| All of them.
| Covzire wrote:
| Curiously, virtually all "legal speech" bans and
| demonetization happen to be for opinions or content that
| disagree with whatever talking points the DNC and/or the CCP
| are pushing.
|
| I know this will get down votes but that's literally the
| truth. Opposing the CCP is marginally safer but not at all
| when they encroach on DNC statements.
| fallingknife wrote:
| Apparently, in the case of Parler, believing that you should
| allow users to post any legal content without moderation. (I
| know they didn't lose their domain, but the effect of being
| denied hosting is functionally the same.)
| [deleted]
| celticninja wrote:
| The problem, as I understand it was not the posting of
| legal content but the fact it wasn't moderated meant there
| was borderline stuff, calls for specific people to be
| killed etc, that were the key factor in them losing
| hosting.
| kebman wrote:
| And there aren't such things on Facebook or Twitter, that
| in fact never get taken down despite multiple complaints?
| celticninja wrote:
| I think they have an active policy of taking them down,
| even if it is inefficient. Not that it should let them
| off the hook for that content being left up. However
| Parler could solve their hosting problem the same way
| Facebook do, which is to own their own hardware.
| bawolff wrote:
| Isn't AWS's claim that parlar was hosting illegal content?
|
| Regardless, they signed a contract detailing what they
| could and could not host on aws. They broke it. Its not
| like they were unaware of the requirements. Moral of the
| story, if you promise X, dont promise someone else Y if X
| and Y conflict. You are going to be breaking your word ine
| way or another.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| If strictly hosting illegal content / being slow to
| remove it means you should be booted from AWS then how on
| earth is Twitter still using AWS?
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| Whichever the platform operator disapproves of.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| *at this time. Dr Seuss was totally OK just a few weeks
| ago.
|
| Btw, is "OK" still OK??!
| celticninja wrote:
| Generally extreme ones. You can be politically on the right
| and espouse views such as "lower taxes, smaller government,
| less regulation" but spilling over into racism is what would
| be termed "wrong". The right are not at risk of being
| deplatformed,the racist right is.
| nomdep wrote:
| Even not working for free for someone "against racism"
| (and/or beign a little religious) is enough these days,
| like when some people try to cancel Chris Pratt for not
| doing a fundraising for Biden.
|
| https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2020/10/19/21523754/chris-
| pr...
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| That is a very narrow view. Take, for example, transgenders
| in women's sport. Do they have an unfair biological
| advantage over natural women? Are you a transphobe if you
| think so? Should you be cancelled and deplatformed if you
| think so?
|
| With so many potentially offensible groups, and with
| offense definition shifting so often, are you sure that
| something totally ok now won't deplatform you in 5 years?
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion
| similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage
| in women's sports due to the biological advantage of
| their body producing testosterone." I have seen people
| disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or
| transphobic.
|
| What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a
| transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should
| not be in women's sports _because they are men._ "
| roenxi wrote:
| > What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a
| transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should
| not be in women's sports because they are men."
|
| Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport
| is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women
| are a special type of women where they get the pronoun
| but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".
| tux1968 wrote:
| > I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion
| similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage
| in women's sports due to the biological advantage of
| their body producing testosterone."
|
| So should a human born as a woman who happens to
| naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in
| other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course
| not.
|
| > "Transgender women should not be in women's sports
| because they are men."
|
| Really? That's offensive? The reason they have higher
| testosterone is because they are men. That doesn't mean
| we should stand in their way of living however they want,
| or demean them in any way. But we should not have to lie
| about their biological constitution as being the reason
| we deem it unfair. It's not their level of testosterone
| that makes it unfair, it's because they come by that
| level of testosterone by way of being a man... if a woman
| naturally has the same level of testosterone, it would be
| fair and she shouldn't be excluded.
|
| Maybe the answer is just doing away with all gender based
| distinctions, have no sports leagues separated on the
| basis of gender at all. Of course, that has its own
| problems.
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > Really? That's offensive?
|
| Yes, intentionally misgendering a trans person is
| offensive and transphobic???
|
| > The reason they have higher testosterone is because
| they are men.
|
| This is needlessyly pedantic. My comment doesn't include
| the detail of _why_ they have increased testortorone
| because it is obvious.
|
| Really, what I meant to express was something like
| "because their biological sex is male" but writing that
| is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of
| "because they are men" is transphobic.
| tux1968 wrote:
| > "because their biological sex is male" but writing that
| is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of
| "because they are men" is transphobic.
|
| This is needlessyly pedantic.
| celticninja wrote:
| I guess with that specific statement it would depend on
| context. In a civil discussion it would be fine, however
| if you posted it on a trans athletes forum it would be
| offensive. You have sought out someone who would likely
| be offended in order to make that statement. As part of a
| debate etc it is a perfectly fine statement to
| debate/discuss.
| tux1968 wrote:
| These are thorny issues, and for the record I do want
| everyone to live a happy and productive life as free from
| injustice as possible. But from my perspective the
| accusations of racism, transphobia, and sexism are thrown
| around way too loosely today, without the attention to
| context that you recommend. Even when the context is
| inappropriate and the language is inflammatory, it may
| just be socially inept rather than hate filled malice.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| The narrow view is the intention I think. They want to
| "allow right wing views" as long as they are the milk
| toast _"well we just disagree about how much money the
| government should get, the acceptable options are A LOT
| and MORE"._ When it really gets into it, totally
| reasonable positions that one side just doesn't want to
| hear suddenly become "racist" or "extreme".
|
| And to the latter part - no. No one ever thinks their
| views will be the wrong ones. This lack of foresight
| seems to be a recent thing in my opinion.
| celticninja wrote:
| I understand your point. I am not for or against here, I
| am providing context.
|
| Yes it is a slippery slope argument, however it is almost
| unique to the United States due to free speech being
| enshrined in the constitution. Elsewhere free speech come
| with the caveat "don't be a dick", so you can say what
| you want e.g trans women should not compete in women's
| sport, but abusing trans women athletes is not
| acceptable.and yes societies views could change and even
| your inoccous statement could become a problem, but if
| social views have changed shouldn't you reasses your own
| views?
|
| Also good internet hygiene would resolve this issue.
| delete your tweets every so often, comments etc. Nothing
| good ever came from resurrecting a 5year old tweet.
| golemotron wrote:
| That's backward. The people who can best answer that question
| are the ones who have been de-platformed.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| This was controversial:
|
| 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
| Kye wrote:
| That's not the best example. Every attempt to shut it down
| just made it spread further.
| Aunche wrote:
| No matter what type of small business you are, relying on a
| single source of revenue is always a massive risk. Youtube is
| no different in that regard. It's a good idea to diversify if
| you can.
| xienze wrote:
| > When you use someone else's platform you are completely
| dependent on the owner of the platform, and being dependent on
| something you don't control is a huge business risk.
|
| Being off of YouTube doesn't make you immune to this. You can
| still be deplatformed by your host, domain registrar, payment
| processor, etc.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| All of the examples you listed are easily recovered from and
| don't cause a complete disconnect from your audience in the
| same way YouTube deplatforming does.
|
| From Amazon sellers to YouTubers to high ranking apps to
| prominent social media profiles, I'm in awe of how much value
| sits at the whim of some platform which usually won't even
| have a person to talk with on the other end.
| mdavidn wrote:
| Unlike YouTube, a business can replace many of these services
| transparently from the perspective of their customers.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| There are hosts out there which will host you as long as
| you're not breaking any laws. This is actually how things
| should work.
|
| Registrars won't take away your domain just because they
| don't like your site. Companies will delete your personal
| account on their platforms without even talking to you. I
| can't think of any case where a domain was seized without a
| court order.
|
| Circumventing payment processor censorship is one of the many
| purposes of cryptocurrency technology. All you have to do is
| accept Monero as payment. The more people that do this, the
| more legitimate and popular and well supported it will be.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| > There are hosts out there which will host you as long as
| you're not breaking any laws.
|
| Yea? Or must mean those "alt right hosts". Because the
| second someone ACTUALLY practices this, they're themselves
| labeled as AltRight. See the problem?
|
| > Registrars won't take away your domain just because they
| don't like your site. Has a domain ever been seized without
| a court order?
|
| Ar15.com went down without warning, provocation, or cause
| because one day around the election GoDaddy made a decision
| to cancel them.
|
| > Circumventing payment processor censorship is one of the
| many purposes of cryptocurrency technology.
|
| That's one option... OR... we give equal protections to
| anyone not breaking the law?
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| > Yea? Or must mean those "alt right hosts".
|
| No, I mean hosts like Nearly Free Speech which has been
| operating since 2002. I've seen this one posted many
| times on HN and it seems great.
|
| https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/
|
| I understand what you mean though. Since they are usually
| smaller hosts, they aren't used by big name companies and
| eventually acquire a reputation for hosting _only_
| offensive content.
|
| > one day around the election GoDaddy made a decision to
| cancel them
|
| Huh. How could they just do that? It eventually went back
| up right?
|
| Do you have more examples?
|
| > we give equal protections to anyone not breaking the
| law?
|
| What do you mean?
| ttt0 wrote:
| >> one day around the election GoDaddy made a decision to
| cancel them
|
| > Huh. How could they just do that? It eventually went
| back up right?
|
| > Do you have more examples?
|
| The first big deplatforming case was probably Cloudflare
| pulling The Daily Stormer. This is what Cloudflare CEO
| said:
|
| > "Literally, I woke up in a bad mood and decided someone
| shouldn't be allowed on the Internet. No one should have
| that power."
|
| Seems like even he agrees that they shouldn't be allowed
| to do that.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Wow that's extremely fucked up. He's right, nobody should
| have that power. If they do have that power, we should
| take it away from them.
| jcrites wrote:
| Yes. There was an example on Hacker News of someone whose
| blog hosted by .in was shut down/seized because some
| freelance-style security project that detects malicious
| sites or botnets or something claimed it was evil. No
| notification or due process. I can't recall enough of the
| details to provide a link, but the individual posted on HN
| asking for help getting his site back, and eventually did.
| But what stuck out at me is that the (1) accuser was some
| kind of NGO (2) the site was directly taken down by the
| registrar (it may have been above the registrar) (3) there
| was no due process involved.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| That's really screwed up. Do you have more details? More
| examples?
| vkou wrote:
| The same can be said for anyone working in the offline
| entertainment sector. People get blacklisted from Hollywood for
| upsetting powerful individuals (Weinstein destroyed a lot of
| careers this way, for a most recent example, before he was sent
| to prison.)
|
| Generally speaking, any industry where your revenue relies on
| marketing, promotion, or access to exclusive collaboration and
| distribution networks is going to have this property.
|
| If you've made it really big, you can try to mitigate risk by
| doing your own marketing, or owning your own share of the
| distribution channel. For all the B-list actors, though, the
| economics of that aren't very favourable.
| monadic8 wrote:
| Yes, these platforms primarily exist to drain revenue from
| the long tail of unappreciated content. I don't think that's
| a positive thing.
| scrose wrote:
| I can't help but wonder why services like Vimeo don't come up
| more often when getting off of YouTube? It seems like Vimeo
| offers similar functionality already. Is there something about it
| that I'm missing / is it just not cool for content creators?
| imwillofficial wrote:
| What does Vimeo offer that YouTube doesn't do better? What
| reduction in risk does Vimeo offer that is any different than
| YouTube?
| erk__ wrote:
| DRM Free movie downloads, also it supports better quality
| video. Though those are things that work because they do not
| have the same kind of customers/creators as YouTube in
| general.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You're right, but that misses the point of the exodus from
| Youtube, people aren't leaving over DRM or video quality.
| They are leaving because the precarious relationship with a
| capricious overlord. Their livelyhoods are in somebody
| elses hands.
| fakedang wrote:
| Community, moderation, UX, and that's not where all the
| creators are....
| Raed667 wrote:
| What Vimeo and Dailymotion lack is audience. People still post
| on Youtube because they still get the most views there.
| teh_klev wrote:
| I think the problem is that once you get to a certain volume of
| content it becomes eye wateringly expensive on Vimeo. Louis
| Rossmann explained this in a couple of his videos (I never
| bookmarked them). Even if he were to push just his repair
| videos (i.e. not including his opinion pieces) he'd fall into
| into a whole other universe of cost.
| dblooman wrote:
| Floatplane as explained by Linus doesn't make sense, you support
| a creator by getting videos a little earlier. The cost of
| building and maintaining a platform like that must be large and
| seems unnecessary for what is essentially video Patreon.
|
| What is sad is that you see youtubers talking in code on videos,
| not saying words, self censoring because youtube's detection is
| so good, videos get demonetised instantly. This is also why most
| people have seen an Ad in a video for PIA or surfshark or worse,
| raid shadow legends.
| regnerba wrote:
| > Floatplane as explained by Linus doesn't make sense, you
| support a creator by getting videos a little earlier.
|
| You support creators by giving them money. In return for
| supporting a creator you get video content in return.
| Floatplane as a platform for the most part doesn't dictate what
| that content is other than it being in the format of a video.
|
| LTT themselves have actually been moving away from pushing
| videos early to Floatplane and more towards giving unique video
| content on Floatplane such as behind the scenes videos.
|
| You run into issues with promising videos early to only part of
| your community. For example when you have review embargos and
| want to make drop a video at the same time as every other
| YouTuber,
|
| > The cost of building and maintaining a platform like that
| must be large
|
| It isn't that crazy really. Unlike YouTube which streams most
| of it's video for free and has to recover that cost via ads,
| every person streaming on Floatplane has paid money to stream
| that content.
|
| Floatplane has been scaling slowly which has allowed them to
| stay on baremetal instead of going to the cloud. They don't
| need a lot of the advantages the cloud has, such as the ability
| to scale on demand. This isn't your normal unicorn startup from
| silicon valley that needs hyper growth to attract more
| investors for an eventual IPO or buyout.
|
| Linus and Luke are putting their own money into it because they
| want to have a fallback incase YouTube pulls the plug on them.
| They are not taking lots of investment to try and build a
| YouTube competitor.
|
| Their costs are actually really reasonable. They have a much
| better profit sharing model with other creators than YouTube
| does. They recognize that they have a base line cost for a
| given creator, that is the cost of storing the video and
| processing it for example. Then they have a cost per user of
| that content. This may have changed but their model was recover
| that base line cost from the subscriptions and then take a much
| lower cut afterwards. So from a creators point of view you get
| more value as your scale the number of users from your
| community on the site.
|
| > seems unnecessary for what is essentially video Patreon.
|
| Eh, maybe. It does however let them focus very much on that
| video aspect and provide users with a solid experience
| dedicated to videos. I imagine over time they will add more
| features to Floatplane that help differentiate it.
|
| One example of that is live streams. If you want to live stream
| to your Patreon members they suggest you use Crowdcast,
| something you have to pay for separately
| (https://support.patreon.com/hc/en-
| us/articles/115002973506-M...).
|
| Floatplane supports live streaming.
| xwdv wrote:
| I wonder if there could be a good business in building
| "deplatforming" type content websites for people with large
| audiences who want to decouple from centralized platforms.
| GermanDude wrote:
| You should always try to have your personal website, as it's
| almost the only internet asset that you can actually own.
| slezyr wrote:
| You don't own its domain, however. It can be revoked at any
| time.
| michaelbuckbee wrote:
| Yes. But if you consider it in terms of "potential to be
| messed with" - the surface area is much less.
| quonn wrote:
| Not if you have a trademark.
| zchrykng wrote:
| Tell that to the people who have be completely de-
| platformed over the last few years.
|
| Everyone agrees that most, if not all, of them are horrible
| people, but it is totally possible to lose your domain name
| if no one will provide registrations and such services to
| you.
| viraptor wrote:
| I can't remember any of them losing domain registration.
| They lost hosting providers and DNS hosting. Did I miss
| someone?
| judge2020 wrote:
| Technically you do own the domain, although the registry and
| most registrars retain the right to revoke it based on their
| abuse policies; There are enterprise-grade registrars that
| have contracts without these provisions (like CSC Global[0],
| which Disney uses[1]) if you'd like to remove this risk.
|
| 0: http://corporatedomains.com
|
| 1: https://who.is/whois/disney.com
| tux1968 wrote:
| It's impossible to be completely impervious to all threats,
| but for your domain name there are some options that may
| help. For instance there are domains sold outside the reach
| of specific jurisdictions[1] and there are blockchain dns
| efforts as well[2].
|
| [1] https://bulletproofhosting.org/bulletproof-domains/
|
| [2] https://blockchain-dns.info/
| pizza wrote:
| Technically your IP address could too
| nicbou wrote:
| Even then, you're at Google's mercy, since they control search
| traffic.
|
| I run my own website, but 85% of my traffic comes from Google.
| It's pretty much like getting 85% of your income from a single
| client.
| daniellarusso wrote:
| There are many ways to have inbound traffic visit your site.
|
| If you are reliant on search terms, I can understand, but
| otherwise, Google does not have control over your domain name
| resolving to your server's IP address.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| More Cloudflare's right? Because they can drop your DDOS
| protection or just block you from their DNS lookups, right?
| Like they did to 4chan/8chan.
| Jenk wrote:
| If you own a site that has systemic issues with child
| pornography sharing and other illegal material, you
| probably deserve it.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| It didn't have such an issue.
|
| _8chan_ being dropped showed well how cancel culture
| works, and how in the court of public opinion one is
| found guilty not on evidence, but on sensationalist news
| articles that outright lie, sitting free from the pains
| of perjury and cross-examination.
|
| I have not once in my life seen this child pornography or
| far-right content on _8chan_ that these news articles
| claimed infested it; one would have to be very lucky for
| the former to see it before a moderator removed it, and
| for the latter one would have to specifically browse
| niche boards that have very little activity compared to
| the big boards, which are simply about video games,
| lolcat image macros, and dating advice.
|
| Have you ever seen child pornography on _8chan_ or
| _4chan_? have you ever browsed them?
| Stevvo wrote:
| 8chan had the infamous /loli/ , it was dedicated entirely
| to child pornography. The only rule was it had to be 3D
| rendered or drawn/painted as opposed to
| photographic/video.
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| So not child pornography by the legal definition of
| U.S.A. law and most other jurisdictions.
|
| By your definition of child pornography, i.r.c., and
| _Mangadex_ also feature child pornography, as well as
| _Google_ search results and most mainstream pornography
| websites.
| Jenk wrote:
| yes, and yes.
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I'm not saying that they deserve it or not. I'm just
| saying the method by which they were brought offline was
| effective.
| throwaway45349 wrote:
| 4chan is a shady place, but it is definitely not a
| bastion of child porn. The owners do not allow anything
| like that.
| claudiawerner wrote:
| GP was probably referring to some part of 8chan, not
| 4chan.
| gsich wrote:
| I don't think they allow that there either.
| throwaway35i2 wrote:
| I run a 4chan archive, fireden.net, I don't archive /b/
| and my #1 reason I need to take down things is because of
| child porn, to the point that I honestly think about why
| i still run it anymore.
| ttt0 wrote:
| I suspect you'd have a similar problem if you decided to
| run a twitter archive.
| Jenk wrote:
| /b/ has been an epicentre for decades.
| cbozeman wrote:
| That is total horseshit.
|
| Yes, there are points in time when posters have attempted
| to post child pornography there, but it gets taken down
| _swiftly_ and gets reported to moderators as swiftly as
| its posted.
|
| Your "epicentre" of child pornography on the Internet is
| Facebook, not 4chan.[1]
|
| [1]: https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/213-worst-
| epidemic/
| Jenk wrote:
| _an_ epicentre, not _the_ epicentre.
| gsich wrote:
| Epicentre implies singular.
| offby37years wrote:
| Any site that allows unfettered user contributions will
| eventually be plagued with such. That includes Apple,
| Facebook, Google, and Twitter.
| bryan_w wrote:
| You could run an ad in a newspaper.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Are you being sarcastic? Conversation rates from newspapers
| are pretty much nonexistent (and difficult to measure).
| Blikkentrekker wrote:
| I feel there should be a legal principle that services as
| large as _Google_ , that essentially have a monopoly in such
| a field could be legally ruled a service of public interest,
| and held to certain standards and essentially be told by
| governments how they be run.
|
| How to escape this fate? Do not become a big monopoly.
|
| We live in an age where various resources that are
| essentially indispensable public resources are provided by
| private, for-profit companies at their own whims and the law
| should recognize that.
|
| Even non-profit services such as _Wikipedia_ of course have
| the power to influence and steer the world to a degree that
| no non-democratically elected organization should have.
| XorNot wrote:
| I'm going to need you to think very carefully about how
| much you trust the government to protect the public
| interest when it comes to dictating how a media platform
| operates.
|
| The government is unlikely to be able to dictate algorithm
| changes, but reacting to and forcing favorable behaviors to
| the current regime to be preserved is certainly within
| their power.
| wffurr wrote:
| What third avenue for protecting the public interest do
| you recommend between corporate control and government
| regulation?
|
| In a democracy, government is theoretically the mechanism
| by which public concerns are aired and addressed.
| v7p1Qbt1im wrote:
| You need bigger systemic change for that. Under neoliberal
| capitalism the optimal theoretical end state of any (for
| profit) corporation is to own absolutely everything and be
| the last one standing. It's just the nature of a
| corporation.
|
| Hyperbole, yes. But you get the point.
|
| It just so happens that big tech firms have a shot of
| actually achieving it.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| This isn't just about a personal website though. This is Linus
| Tech Tips (with a staff of about 20 people) building his own
| platform for delivering content as the article points out.
|
| That's a considerable development effort and probably out of
| reach for youtube creators who are large enough to make a
| living and depend on youtube, but not large enough to justify
| that kind of investment.
| piplikoc wrote:
| Linus Media Group has 32 employees [1] with 7 massive YouTube
| channels. As the article pointed out they also have other
| tech YouTubers releasing content of Floatplane, not just
| their own channels.
|
| [1] https://linusmediagroup.com/our-team
| fakedang wrote:
| Exactly. I doubt even the big ones like Pewdiepie can even
| retain a following with their own website, much less a s
| small independent creator.
| a_hard_time wrote:
| > That's a considerable development effort and probably out
| of reach for youtube creators who are large enough to make a
| living and depend on youtube, but not large enough to justify
| that kind of investment.
|
| YouTube revolves around free content - this places creators
| on the platform at an immediate and significant disadvantage
| in terms of monetising their audience. Many YouTubers who are
| stuck in that rut of being dependent on YouTube, despite
| having a fairly large audience, would likely make a lot more
| money if they started producing content on platforms which
| offer better options for monetisation (ideally, their own).
|
| A great example of this is Twitch. Direct monetisation of the
| audience is a fundamental part of the culture on Twitch. The
| site is optimised for it. Even before the Amazon Prime
| subscriptions, Twitch was FAR more profitable than YouTube
| for creators with audiences of comparable size.
| [deleted]
| dghughes wrote:
| Your comment for some reason reminds me of the early days of
| the Internet. Personal websites were a given there was a major
| urge to have your own website. Whether you had your own domain
| name or a Geocities type of page you just had to have one.
|
| On dialup people tended to be more independent you jumped on
| the Internet then jumped off to preserve your precious 60
| hours/month (and to allow your landline phone to get calls).
| That time offline was used learning about things and you
| couldn't Google every little thing.
|
| I was much more into the fundamentals of the computer itself
| more than the stuff you could see on it. Making boot disks,
| adjusting settings in Windows, discovering Linux, learning
| HTML, sending lots of email, some IRC. The Internet grew in
| complexity and usefulness, and always on cable got cheaper but
| early on the computer itself was my main focus.
|
| Now it seems as if a computer is simply a conduit to watch
| YouTube videos. It seems like people are realizing they need to
| be more independent.
| antoniuschan99 wrote:
| The first video I tried to download was the first South Park
| Short on dialup. It took around 6 or 8 hours. This was in
| 1997/98. The next year I got cable and it was super fast like
| a couple of minutes.
|
| Now it takes a few seconds!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T_RZOoVlzc
| FpUser wrote:
| Because when you have business that brings money you do not let
| the somebody else control it to the point that they can kill it
| next day just because they can.
|
| One of the reasons why my backends are based on self sufficient
| architecture that I can move to any arbitrary VM / dedicated
| server in no time. There is no cloudy dependent stuff in my stack
| at all.
| Swizec wrote:
| Youtube is fantastic top of funnel. 2nd or 3rd biggest search
| engine online. Google also loves promoting it on search results.
|
| But YouTube isn't where you should keep the rest of your
| business.
| duxup wrote:
| Honestly I find them sometimes not promoting it enough.
|
| Granted, they probably shouldn't give it any favoritism... but
| often I'll google for a video clip and have to refine search to
| just show me youtube results as i don't want to deal with some
| beast of another site.
| swlkr wrote:
| The ideal platform for something like youtube would be to
| separate discovery from content.
|
| You host the content, and you can pick from UIs/algorithms for
| the discovery.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| We are still a very long way from distributed discovery.
|
| Back in the day at Demon Internet (well known 90s UK ISP) every
| customer got a free 10MB of webspace - barely any of them used
| it.
|
| But it _should_ have been how we all hosted our blogs and our
| videos. And it would solve a multitude of social media issues.
|
| If Facebook and youtube did not host its hard to see how they
| could compile trustable usage stats (#) and so hard to see how we
| could all find out we must watch Gangnam Style. Similar problems
| seem to hover over crypto-currencies.
|
| Edit: some random thoughts
|
| - DNS: In a world of individual producers, curated aggregation
| still has value as it provides a quality / interest gate. A TV
| channel implies curation, a review guide the same. Perhaps it is
| no coincidence Marvel has found its footing in a world where
| choice is infinite and curation zero. Every TV show hopes to land
| a few million dedicated fans.
|
| - Social media companies basically have zero curation (this is
| weirdly tending towards including Amazon who are dumbing down
| curation in marketplace)
|
| - Our natural curation signals are usually based around proximity
| (geography, recommendation, similarity). These fall apart where
| the same DNS hosts nazis and nannies. Especially where
| recommendations are controlled by (one?) algorithm.
|
| - If enough viewing moves off YouTube (not merely the bits over
| pipes, it off the influence of the algorithm) then these other
| effects might start to show through.
|
| - But even if we could gather reliable distributed usage stats
| (book publishers managed it for decades), distributed discovery
| becomes a strange animal. A dumb algorithm that recommends what
| is the most watched video in the world, followed by the second,
| would have some strange chaotic behaviour but would at least have
| twin virtues of _simple_ and _transparent_. Start adding in
| anything else (here is my past history, make a recommendation, or
| here is my aspirational set of people (my twitter follow list is
| watching) or just show me what Barry Norman recommends, all of
| these can be made transparent - and open to a cottage industry of
| discovery algorithms.
|
| - This cottage industry fascinates me - it's like the other
| industries I expected to exist but don't (decent job search, dis-
| intermediated real estate). Duck Duck Go seems the model here -
| there is likely to be a (regulated?) split in discovery - much
| like railways or phone lines - where the underlying monopoly bit
| (we scraping) gets hived off and everyone can access it at common
| fees - and the add on bits, the start of distributed discovery -
| appears as a more competitive market. And one hopes a less
| behaviour driven one (I am still wanting to know the revenue
| difference between Google storing my every move and returning
| what it thinks I want and Duck Duck Go just using the context of
| my query - and returning what I asked for.
|
| - But hopefully after a Cambrian explosion of companies offering
| discovery - not just search or for videos and entertainment but
| even shopping (as Amazon hits the same split the Google
| inevitably will), after all that, we are still a long way from
| where I hope we can get.
|
| - Everything online should treat me as a citizen, as even a
| patient - where do no harm is the first principle. If we live in
| an internet where my individual best interests are the legal and
| cultural norm, as professions are supposed to be, then we enter a
| totally different equation. We are all exploited online now, and
| the discussions are about harm reduction. But that's not the real
| end goal. Making sure quacks don't charge too much for the snake
| oil is not what made medicine work.
|
| (#) ignoring facebook lying to advertisers etc etc
| jjbinx007 wrote:
| I was just thinking the other day that a lot of us in the 90s
| chose our ISPs based on how much web space was provided by the
| ISP, how many news groups the ISP gave access to, number of
| included email addresses, etc.
|
| Even the first broadband providers I used offered web space. I
| can't remember when it stopped being a thing.
| trinovantes wrote:
| Seeing how many channels are randomly getting nuked by false
| copyright strikes, shadowbans, account termations, it makes sense
| that they want to move off YouTube. However as a consumer,
| there's just so many services/websites competing for my limited
| attention that if they're completely off YouTube, I doubt I'd
| ever watch them again -- especially if there's a paywall -- I'd
| just watch someone else the YT algorithm recommends.
| gerash wrote:
| This is the same as centralized app stores where the only
| difference is that here you do have an alternative.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-07 23:01 UTC)