71–80 of 122 posts
categories would be nice.
The audience, algorithm, and network effects of YouTube are what make it a valuable and viable platform for content creators. You can't put this content behind the paywall of an unknown service and expect to get anything close to similar results.
As much as I would like to see competition in the online video market, I would be surprised to see this still operating a year or two from now.
>No programmatic ads The "programmatic" qualification has a weird smell and makes me suspicious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am assuming they are referring to YouTube giving up on the old definition of "subscribe" and re-ordering peoples feeds to improve engagement. They want to be YouTube Premium with a guaranteed sequential subscription timeline.
> YouTube giving up on the old definition of "subscribe" and re-ordering peoples feeds to improve engagement What do you mean by this? When I subscribe to someone, they show up on my subscription feed page. Hasn't it always been like this?
>No algorithm. A personal observation... On that Nebula site, I see creators like CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Real Engineering, etc. I learned about their existence from Youtube's algorithmic suggestions . Probably 99% of any channel I watch regularly on Youtube came from algorithms instead of url referrals of HN or reddit. Yes, algorithms have a dark side such as the ElsaGate situation. All I can say is that the…
>No algorithm. A personal observation... On that Nebula site, I see creators like CGP Grey, Wendover Productions, Real Engineering, etc. I learned about their existence from Youtube's algorithmic suggestions . Probably 99% of any channel I watch regularly on Youtube came from algorithms instead of url referrals of HN or reddit. Yes, algorithms have a dark side such as the ElsaGate situation. All I can say is that the…
Of course, that's why YouTube insists on keeping recommendations despite the horror stories. It works 98% of the time. But .2% of the time it assembles a playlist of content finely tuned to the tastes of a pedophile. But you can't take the smooth without the rough. The plus side of the recommendation algorithm is great, but is it worth the bad side?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, that's why YouTube insists on keeping recommendations despite the horror stories. It works 98% of the time. But .2% of the time it assembles a playlist of content finely tuned to the tastes of a pedophile. But you can't take the smooth without the rough. The plus side of the recommendation algorithm is great, but is it worth the bad side?
what happens the other 1.8% of the time?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, that's why YouTube insists on keeping recommendations despite the horror stories. It works 98% of the time. But .2% of the time it assembles a playlist of content finely tuned to the tastes of a pedophile. But you can't take the smooth without the rough. The plus side of the recommendation algorithm is great, but is it worth the bad side?
what happens the other 1.8% of the time?
(or just shows them a video they aren't interested in)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I've sworn off YouTube for my kids... you can't whitelist anything and the amount of garbage even on YouTube kids is terrible.
That's a reasonable choice in my opinion. If you want to make any videos available to younger kids, you might have a look at Youtube-dl which would allow you to store pre-viewed videos offline on a device for them to watch.
Here's the impression I'm getting looking at that page: It's like YouTube Originals. Curated, safe, sanitized. As an adult, this is like the last thing I'd want in a YouTube-like site, for my viewing. I don't feel like I'm likely to find something unusual or unexpected. On the other hand, if I was a parent looking to distract my very young kids, curated, safe, sanitized, and ad-free is exactly what I'd want. EDIT: Is…