Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:07PM
(#21507108)
> The type of bandwidth and compute power you need to distribute 5Mbps video to a couple thousand viewers is easily in the reach of individuals now. (10Gbps connections to the Internet can be had on the order of $1000.)
I stopped reading here because you're clearly out of touch.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by jrockway on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:21PM
(#21507264)
I have spent the last 6 years of my life working at ISPs. I know how much this stuff costs. I also moderate several Twitch streams.
I'm happy to give you a phone number to call to get your 10Gbps transit circuit set up at that price, even though I don't work there anymore.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:33PM
(#21507394)
Please do. You'd save the company I work for several tens of thousands of dollars a year that we pay on our current connection.
Unless of course you mean "$1000/mo, after several million in upfront costs".
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by notyourwork on Monday November 11, 2019 @12:59PM
(#21507039)
I think workout clothes depends on what it is. Wearing a sports bra is surely different from wearing a T-shirt. Before we assume malicious intent by twitch it should be worth specifying what streamer was wearing.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by wayoutthere on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:11PM
(#21507149)
Nudity is one thing, but nobody should be enforcing dress codes which are only applied to women.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by jrockway on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:25PM
(#21507308)
Exactly.
Here is a summary of the situation: https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/overwatch-streamer-hit...
I don't think Fareeha was out of line. I've watched people stream Overwatch from their pool, and Twitch didn't mind at all even though the (male) streamer was completely topless.
It's very arbitrary and unfair.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by notyourwork on Monday November 11, 2019 @05:28PM
(#21509585)
My point being, to say "random twitch streamer was booted for clothing" without any context is much different from "a female wearing a revealing outfit was streaming". I'm merely asking for context before we get pitch forks out.
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by pvaldes on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:24PM
(#21507291)
... and obese men
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by kelnos on Monday November 11, 2019 @01:17PM
(#21507219)
What's wrong with a sports bra? If a woman can go outside and run in public while wearing one, why can't she wear one on a Twitch stream?
Re:YouTube says it has ‘no obligation’ to host anyone’s video
by notyourwork on Wednesday November 13, 2019 @11:58AM
(#21526324)
For the same reason you cannot eat in a restaurant without specific dress, businesses get to decide on their own rules.
I'm also very close to making some sort of self-hosted Twitch type thing. A lot of streamers are getting caught up in Twitch's bullshit policies. Someone I follow wore their workout clothes on stream after they finished a workout and wanted to make their normal stream time. Twitch banned her for 30 days because that's supposedly inappropriate. I think it's time to cut them out of the loop and make streaming decentralized. The type of bandwidth and compute power you need to distribute 5Mbps video to a couple thousand viewers is easily in the reach of individuals now. (10Gbps connections to the Internet can be had on the order of $1000.)
All you need is some software to run it all and a standard way of paying the streamers across the decentralized network. Probably a good application for cryptocurrency. People are crazy about their favorite streamers, and would probably be willing to learn how to use something other than a credit card to subscribe. Emotes are already decentralized with things like BTTV and FFZ. So it could work. I just don't see how I would personally make any money, so I haven't pursued it much. But the days of requiring some megacorp like Google or Amazon to be able to distribute video are over -- this area is ripe for disruption.
But I think as much as content creators love to hate on their platform, they do love the free audience. A lot of people got their start when "the algorithm" finally recognized them, and they turned their hobby into a day job. I'm not sure it could ever work with a centralized gateway that collects metadata and suggests new creators to users. But maybe it's OK if we put the money and the servers in the hands of the creators, and let discovery be an additional bonus. And maybe running that could be profitable; you get a $1 commission for sending a new subscriber their way.
I dunno, just some random thoughts... but this all sounds more and more reasonable every day. People lost access to their email for chatting in a streamer's chat. That's CRAZY.