391–400 of 444 posts
The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future. However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples: - ads are required for big channels (false) - demonetization…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As we understand it now it’s ... and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel. You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
"non-standard" != "need to enable ads"
Whether you want to call that an iron-clad rule or not, the face-value version of the article, and the general gist of the reactions from the comment section seem to be much closer to the truth than your portrayal of it as an "unrelated and false pet peeve."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like). And no one whines that they don't get free conference admis…
Actually, tech conferences are expensive to attend, and there's been a growing movement the past few years for conferences to at least comp the ticket of someone who's scheduled to speak.
The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future. However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples: - ads are required for big channels (false) - demonetization…
The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case.
Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here.
That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only things were so simple. This reminds me how not too long ago, how everyone was trying to make a clone of HN and Reddit within 24 hours in x programming language. It's one thing make a service for few 100 users, it's a different beast to serve millions of users. In case of Online Videos, it is not only extremely difficult, it still remains very expensive. There is literally a handful of companies who can financ…
> There is literally a handful of companies who can financially and technically pull it off at youtube-scale. Only a few companies that can do it centrally. Peer to Peer technology was doing it before youtube existed.
I don't understand why you are mentioning peer to peer technology? What does that have to do with anything? Youtube is not a cute side project where your viewing experience depending on how many peers your video has. Peertube depends on webtorrent, you literally have to host and seed every single video on your platform and duplicate it multiple times by others. Good luck doing it over petabyte scale. Google does something similar, but popular videos are hosted at users-end point on GGC nodes, distributed over 10,000s of servers all over the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
> As we understand it now it’s ... and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel. You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a reason I don't want to expose my public IP address? Every server I connect to knows my IP address. Connecting to bittorrent would give you the following information: * Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address). * ISP name * Rough location (mine says I'm in a suburb about 20 miles away, wh…
> Is there a reason I don't want to expose my public IP address? Yes, I like my privacy. > Every server I connect to knows my IP address. And in this case it is every server plus every peer which is a much larger number of people having this information. > * Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address)…
I think sharing ip addresses, and using multiple ones, is probably the most common case in The United States.
Most households have multiple internet users and one ip addresses. Most people have a cellphone connected to the internet. A lot of people access the internet in locations like offices, school, and libraries.
So I had a look at Peertube and had the friendly reminder "The sharing system used by this video implies that some technical information about your system (such as a public IP address) can be accessed publicly." Which is then expanded on in an about page: "PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users. It implies that your public IP address is stored in the public BitTorrent tracker of the vi…