YouTube started moderating it's content more because advertisers asked for it. No large advertiser wants to be shown next to a neo-nazi video.
No parent has time to watch TV with their child all the time up until they're 18. You might say 'well don't let them watch TV' and that's a valid choice. But other parents want to choose safe ranges of programming and have someone else police stuff to make sure it stays in that range.
I am happy to see content platforms policing thought in this manner!
Yes roughly 2-3x the people are dying everyday vs 5 months ago. That’s horrible obviously but I barely see anyone in a close setting.
But people are living despite it. My friend is dating 3 to 7 girls at once and they all know each other (and all hang out together).
Not saying that’s ideal but the pandemic isn’t affecting people like cable news suggest. Barely anyone talks about it but we all try to be careful.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51729647
(Note that this is from March! When I left Taiwan in late January, everyone at the airport was masked up and slightly paranoid.)
Taiwan and NZ also closed their borders while Western experts "knew" that the coronavirus was just the flu, and that closing borders was xenophobic, racism is the real pandemic, etc. etc.
2020 is easily the year when Western experts failed the hardest I've ever witnessed. Absolutely surreal. Maybe we should fire and replace our current selection of experts before we ban everyone else.
So nice to see sycophantic unintelligent “hackers” promote blind authoritarianism. You have no concept of the words you so ambitiously spout.
Playing into this idea that somehow criticism isn't allowed is disingenuous.
I’m sure you realize how difficult this would be to respond to, if such videos were in fact deleted.
Nonetheless, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-spli...
Most advertisers probably already understand that the person being exposed to their content for a brief moment isn't under the impression that the ad doesn't mean strong endorsement of the content by the advertiser.
Accounting for business owners likely leaning free-market, it seems improbable that they mean 'Trump supporters' when they say 'we don't want to advertise with neo-nazis'. They probably mean literal neo-nazi.
I don't mind if literal neo-nazi are moderated off a channel. Nobody likes them.
If they weren't happy, they would delete the videos on demonetisation. They don't have to pay for hosting. They know these videos are drawing in a valuable audience.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18136253/pewdiepie-vs-tseries...
If your main goal is "How can I make money?" then maybe. And that's one of the huge reasons that YouTube is the mess that it is.
For the rest of us, this is not important at all. In fact, I am happy that there is no advertiser network whatsoever. if I put something on the web, I do not do it because I expect compensation. I am not alone in this sentiment.
PeerTube needs content creators to get on board. Having options for monetizing content could encourage creators to use PeerTube.
That's the problem right there. "Content creators". Protein factories churning out videos for money.
Not every platform needs "content creators" - sometimes people with interesting things to share are enough, and these tend to use side revenue to fund their sharing.
Many of the YouTube channels I consume didnt start for any other reason than making things for others. They found popularity and decided to make a go at doing it professionally. Making quality content cost money and time. Expecting everybody to make videos on their own dime for posterity is unrealistic.
Others mostly need to match their hobbies with a side job.
False. The continued growth of Vimeo and even YouTube show this as well.
> Advertising isn't the only solution but it does allow viewers to watch without paying.
False.
> PeerTube needs content creators to get on board.
If by "content creators" you mean Fuck Jerry Media or whoever, then no, it really doesn't. If by "content creators" you just mean "those who create content without the expectation of financial gain" then PeerTube is doing ok.
> Having options for monetizing content could encourage creators to use PeerTube.
Again, if "How do I monetize this?" is your primary reason for the content, maybe the content doesn't need to be there. That's the point that people are missing.
If your goal is "make money" instead of "share useful information" then you are part of this problem.
There's a possibility to add donation links and the icon is then visible on every video. Patreon is big for a reason: people actually use it.
I'd rather donate to the content creators I want to see thrive than be bombarded with ads for things I don't want anyway.
The peertube devs refuse to incorporate monetization beyond donations, but they DO have a plugin system. It's not beyond imagination for someone (person or group) to add something like "paid scrobbling" where people add e.g 5€ on their account and then it's divided depending on certain criteria. That criteria could be for example:
- always give 50% to my subscriptions
- give the rest to creators of videos that I have watched which:
* have these tags
* are longer than 5 minutes
* and that I have watched at least 50% or 5 minutes of, which ever comes first
Tada. No ads, user-defined distribution of resources, yada yada.
I was hoping that Flattr would be able to provide a Chromium-free, 'Brave-like' experience, especially with their browser plugin, but if anything it has been losing popularity (despite being years older than Patreon!).
For a reason that escapes me, they even recently decided to officially remove their plugin, so now they can even hardly be differentiated from the other Patreon-likes.
Flattr uses credit cards exclusively, Liberapay only uses Stripe, Patreon a host of third parties but no direct transfers, and I have checked out the rest.
Why can't I just transfer the amount I want, when I want, directly to another bank without an intermediary? I'm fine with the donation subscription service knowing how much and to whom I'm donating and taking out but why does it have to talk to so many other services I haven't picked or agreed to interact with?
Most videos are made by professionals? That's not my experience.
The better question is, was not having ads on the YouTube platform a deliberate choice to help grow adoption over its competitors which would have had to have ads to run (at the time) the expensive servers?
Just to be clear (and pedantic): Peertube is French.
One could see these fediversed projects as counter-SV, actually. Not 'coming from SV', but attacking the SV status quo.
https://degooglisons-internet.org/en/
And have pretty much became a reference for libre alternatives :
https://degooglisons-internet.org/en/alternatives
† By the way it's a very SV thing to do to think that everything revolves around SV, and therefore excluding Microsoft from the list of the problematic companies. (And including Netflix, which is problematic in its own ways, but at least an order of magnitude less than the "big 5".) Sadly, some politicians have also been dropping the trailing M, I guess that those big contracts with the military and the healthcare sector have something to do with that…
It’s an important thing, not the important thing.
This is a great alternative to sharing large video files with others by having someone else just watch what they want of it, if you want to ensure it’s more permanent than- let’s say- Google Music.
If the fear is that an evil Google competitor will come along that will do more damage- this wouldn’t enable that. That would take a serious amount of funding and technology, not a free clone of YouTube without all of the infrastructural backing.
0: https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/21/youtube-is-closing-its-pri...
I've never even heard of that 'direct share' feature, but have used the private and unreferenced settings on my videos many times over the years.
Besides the unwanted cognitive load it imposes, advertisers want feedback and that means they're incentivized to invade my privacy as well as intrude upon my attention.
After the "Adpocalypse" where the money you could make from advertisement significantly dropped for most creators, they recognized that relying only on Youtube is a bad idea and diversified. Since then other avenues (Twitch, Patreon, merch, ad placements) have become their primary sources of income.
For mid-size creators Youtube ads are not enough to make a living from it and for big creators with low production expenses (e.g. gaming videos) that _could_ make a living from it, it's not a significant portion of their income if they diversified (and most creators that haven't are not on the platform anymore).
The technology behind the fediverse is an important brick, so PeerTube 3 is interesting. But the house will only be liveable when someone figures out how companies like AppNexus integrate profitably and successfully into the fediverse.
The issue is that a fair reading is not being applied evenly. Twitter interprets "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th" [0] as a call to violence. That isn't even close to a fair metaphorical reading, and it was probably meant literally.
[0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
You can argue that's not fair to Trump, and don't pretend his accounts were banned for the literal meaning of the words, when the post you linked to makes clear the thinking behind the decision.
At that point, you wouldn’t be able to say the video game was not a cause. This is not blaming Trump for abstract violence in general, but for specific violence that he called for actually happening.
It is not a perfect system, but I think banning based on result is not an unfair system.
I’d say that Trump’s calls to violence are pretty credible.
Has Twitter been made aware of this person and won’t suspend their account?
If Silicon Valley continues to drift into ideological activism, at some point a hugely profitable opportunity to set up a new advertising network develops.