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

161–170 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#161

Post by vl »

simias wrote: post #151
dalbasal wrote: post #117

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 t…

It's just incredibly hard to compete with Youtube. In a way that's Google's greatest achievement: they convinced everybody that they're entitled to host and stream 4K videos forever not only for free, but the creators get a share of the ad revenue despite fronting none of the hosting costs. It's an incredibly good deal. The amount of infrastructure and human resources required to merely keep a system like Youtube run…

And this is why Google needs to be split up. No other enterprise can burn so many billions of dollars for so many years to corner the market.

Google uses profits from search to napalm everything remotely looking like a threat.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#162

Post by roenxi »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #120
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> 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."

Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#163

Post by gsich »

claudiawerner wrote: post #109
throwaway45349 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan is a shady place, but it is definitely not a bastion of child porn. The owners do not allow anything like that.

GP was probably referring to some part of 8chan, not 4chan.

I don't think they allow that there either.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#164

Post by random5634 »

vl wrote: post #161
simias wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just incredibly hard to compete with Youtube. In a way that's Google's greatest achievement: they convinced everybody that they're entitled to host and stream 4K videos forever not only for free, but the creators get a share of the ad revenue despite fronting none of the hosting costs. It's an incredibly good deal. The amount of infrastructure and human resources required to merely keep a system like Youtube run…

And this is why Google needs to be split up. No other enterprise can burn so many billions of dollars for so many years to corner the market. Google uses profits from search to napalm everything remotely looking like a threat.

Does google make or lose money on youtube? Based on the number of ads I see, I'd imagine they break even?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#165

Post by gsich »

Jenk wrote: post #84
cbozeman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is total horseshit. Yes, there are points in time when posters have attempted to post child pornography there, but it gets taken down swiftly and gets reported to moderators as swiftly as its posted. Your "epicentre" of child pornography on the Internet is Facebook, not 4chan.[1] [1]: https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/213-worst-epidemic/

an epicentre, not the epicentre.

Epicentre implies singular. Having multiple epicentres would defy the definition of a "centre".

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#166

Post by Brakenshire »

teh_klev wrote: post #104
scrose wrote: post #23

I 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?

I think the problem is that once you get to a certain volume of content it becomes eye wateringly expensive on Vimeo. Louis Rossmann explained this in a couple of his videos (I never bookmarked them). Even if he were to push just his repair videos (i.e. not including his opinion pieces) he'd fall into into a whole other universe of cost.

Surely the issue is that Vimeo doesn't have Google's adtech behemoth behind it, so either the creator or the audience has to pay for hosting, rather than it being paid for by advertising.

Peertube seems perhaps a more credible competitor in that sense, by making hosting cheaper. As long as the creators can fund themselves with Patreon, merchandise or whatever else.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#167

Post by random5634 »

scrose wrote: post #23

I 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?

This discoverability on vimeo is poor to terrible.

Youtube feeds me a diet of videos that are hard to turn off, spanning literal decades and with some really weird stuff thrown in (and based on the comments, others have same experience - I'll be on a 10 year old video with positive comments from a day ago).

A common youtube quote:

No one: I want to see five year old archery videos Youtube: Here, try this

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#168

Post by cmeacham98 »

tux1968 wrote: post #160
cmeacham98 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Really? That's offensive? Yes, intentionally misgendering a trans person is offensive and transphobic??? > The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. This is needlessyly pedantic. My comment doesn't include the detail of _why_ they have increased testortorone because it is obvious. Really, what I meant to express was something like "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is aw…

> "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic. This is needlessyly pedantic.

Disagree. "Trans women are men", in a similar vein to using he/his to refer to trans women, is a tactic used by bigots to indicate that they believe trans women are not "real women" and should be universally treated by society as men.

When writing my comment I don't want to have to insert several sentences explaining the nuance that I understand and respect the gender of trans women, but that this is one of those rare cases where we might need to treat them as their biological sex, because that is what determines things about their physical body, and their physical body is what matters right now. As such, I intentionally avoid vague phrases commonly used by transphobes today.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#169

Post by tux1968 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #168
tux1968 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "because their biological sex is male" but writing that is awkward and the most obvious/common interpretation of "because they are men" is transphobic. This is needlessyly pedantic.

Disagree. "Trans women are men", in a similar vein to using he/his to refer to trans women, is a tactic used by bigots to indicate that they believe trans women are not "real women" and should be universally treated by society as men. When writing my comment I don't want to have to insert several sentences explaining the nuance that I understand and respect the gender of trans women, but that this is one of those rar…

Fair enough, but the reason they are being excluded from women's sport is because they are not seen as truly women. If they were indistinguishable from women, there would be no way to exclude them without excluding all women. So as soon as we have this discussion, we have to admit there is a difference between a transgender woman and a woman.

It may be a bit clumsy to refer to them as men, but that is actually the basis of why they are being excluded, because of their "man-ness". That's the underlying reason. I don't think it's transphobic to discuss that openly or to invent an explanation relying on "testosterone".

Post reply on HN