Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#111

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #97
xienze wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you use someone else's platform you are completely dependent on the owner of the platform, and being dependent on something you don't control is a huge business risk. Being off of YouTube doesn’t make you immune to this. You can still be deplatformed by your host, domain registrar, payment processor, etc.

There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws. This is actually how things should work. Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Companies will delete your personal account on their platforms without even talking to you. I can't think of any case where a domain was seized without a court order. Circumventing payment processor censorship is…

> There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws.

Yea? Or must mean those “alt right hosts”. Because the second someone ACTUALLY practices this, they’re themselves labeled as AltRight. See the problem?

> Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Has a domain ever been seized without a court order?

Ar15.com went down without warning, provocation, or cause because one day around the election GoDaddy made a decision to cancel them.

> Circumventing payment processor censorship is one of the many purposes of cryptocurrency technology.

That’s one option... OR... we give equal protections to anyone not breaking the law?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#112

Post by walshemj »

ghaff wrote: post #56
walshemj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its normal for podcasters (which youtubers are) to have a site that can host at least a show page if not a merch store

The difference is that podcasters are typically hosting their own files anyway, handling their own advertising (possibly through networks), and the platforms are just discovery mechanisms. Whereas YouTube is taking care of the more expensive hosting, the advertising, and the discovery--for better or worse.

Not normally your hosting on libsyn and syndicating and audio shows and video are just different types of show.

What strikes me as do that people still use twitch with its disappearing content and crap discovery - and these are shows who have major sponsors FFS.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#114

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

katsura wrote: post #103
sithlord wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube could easily just obliterate a channel today, for some video posted 10 years ago if they deem it bad enough. Doubt if you had your own platform you'd delete yourself for something cringe you said 10 years ago

Yes, but most people don't build their own server farms, don't have their own internet cable, so basically there is always some company in the middle that could easily cancel you.

> don't have their own internet cable

Owning cable doesn't help much as this cable sooner or later needs to be connected to some router that doesn't belong to you. A better solution is to host in a country where political correctness is much weaker than in the West.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#115

Post by jcrites »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #97
xienze wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you use someone else's platform you are completely dependent on the owner of the platform, and being dependent on something you don't control is a huge business risk. Being off of YouTube doesn’t make you immune to this. You can still be deplatformed by your host, domain registrar, payment processor, etc.

There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws. This is actually how things should work. Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Companies will delete your personal account on their platforms without even talking to you. I can't think of any case where a domain was seized without a court order. Circumventing payment processor censorship is…

Yes. There was an example on Hacker News of someone whose blog hosted by .in was shut down/seized because some freelance-style security project that detects malicious sites or botnets or something claimed it was evil. No notification or due process. I can't recall enough of the details to provide a link, but the individual posted on HN asking for help getting his site back, and eventually did. But what stuck out at me is that the (1) accuser was some kind of NGO (2) the site was directly taken down by the registrar (it may have been above the registrar) (3) there was no due process involved.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#116

Post by gsich »

user-the-name wrote: post #57
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #22

Because they are finally learning that all it takes to destroy their business is an algorithm glitch, or having 'wrong' political views, or just falling on the wrong side of an overzealous moderator. When you use someone else's platform you are completely dependent on the owner of the platform, and being dependent on something you don't control is a huge business risk.

What "wrong" political views are those?

Youtube disabled monetization on COVID-19 videos last year. (has been reenabled) This lead some Youtubers to using alternate words for that because the automated system could target your video.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#117

Post by dalbasal »

This article is a little on the surface level, but it's true.

People were screaming about where platforms and digital sharecropping was headed all along... and we're here now. Youtube, which is basically digital free-to-air is even more centralised than old free to air.

Youtube really is an extreme situation. They really dominate a whole medium single handedly and youtubers have shockingly little power in the whole thing. There either needs to be some neutrality, competition or youtubers need to organize somehow... unionize even. Trying to have a relationship with audiences that doesn't run through youtube won't work for most channels... even ones with millions of views.

I always expected a porn company to come in and compete with youtube at some point. They have the infrastructure. I've also been surprised at how restricted youtube manage to be, and still succeed... just the skin censorship if nothing else.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#118

Post by marshmallow_12 »

imwillofficial wrote: post #31
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #21

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.

Define “very good” You mean we get more websites? Oh my god! What if the internet has too many websites! Whatever will we do?! If only we had a way to crawl websites and make them into some kind of list for searching, like some kind of engine for search.

you misunderstood me. a quick google search reveals that YouTube uses 15% of internet traffic. You suggest getting rid of YouTube and putting 15% extra workload onto google. you think that won't be an issue?

as for the "very good" part, yes, youtube is extremely successful at aggregating and displaying useful videos. It is also extremely good at searching through its library and displaying individual users useful videos. Google is far less effective at this, of course. Also, replacing channels with individual websites will vastly increase the internet traffic, not just a minor surge.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#119

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #59
jasode wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Because they are finally learning that existing on someone else's platform sucks. Much better to get your own domain [...] 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 domai…

Besides FloatPlane, other streaming websites that educational channels upload content to are nebula [1] and I think curiosity stream [2]. [1] https://watchnebula.com/ [2] https://curiositystream.com/

Nebula and CuriosityStream have some sort of cross-promotion sponsorship deal going on but I think they're completely separate services and it's only Nebula that has like, youtubers on it.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#120

Post by cmeacham98 »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #99
celticninja wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally extreme ones. You can be politically on the right and espouse views such as "lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation" but spilling over into racism is what would be termed "wrong". The right are not at risk of being deplatformed,the racist right is.

That is a very narrow view. Take, for example, transgenders in women's sport. Do they have an unfair biological advantage over natural women? Are you a transphobe if you think so? Should you be cancelled and deplatformed if you think so? With so many potentially offensible groups, and with offense definition shifting so often, are you sure that something totally ok now won't deplatform you in 5 years?

I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic.

What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men."

Post reply on HN