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.
Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
31–40 of 428 posts
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#32Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#33Because 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.
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””.
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#34I 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?
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#35I 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?
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#36But YouTube isn’t where you should keep the rest of your business.
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you own a site that has systemic issues with child pornography sharing and other illegal material, you probably deserve it.
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#38You should always try to have your personal website, as it's almost the only internet asset that you can actually own.
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.
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.
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#39Back 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
Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites
#40Because 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.
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.