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

311–320 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#311

Post by tux1968 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #200
tux1968 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. When someone is excluded from women's sport because they are not a woman, it's because of their biological background, not because of their avowed…

> I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. Sorry, I shouldn't have used a bad hypothetical about muscles and should have just explicitly said "intersex people". Regardless, here's a page that documents examples of what I mean, including in high-profile events like the Olympics: https://en.w…

Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Since they are not biologically male or female, the correct thing to do might be to create a third division instead of trying to force them into one of the existing options.

There is no shame in being of non-binary biology, so why do we only have competitive divisions for men and women when that doesn't properly accommodate the spectrum of people who actually exist?

While some provisions have previously been made for people who are not biologically female to compete in woman's sport, it is not particularly scalable. There will be continual difficulty deciding when it is appropriate to admit someone or not -- deciding biological sex in the vast majority of cases is much simpler. And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#312

Post by monkeywork »

dang wrote: post #334
dang wrote: post #127

All: please let's try to avoid repeating the generic discussion about how being on someone else's platform leaves you vulnerable to someone else. It's not wrong, of course, but it's been repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation. The goal on HN is curious conversation. Curiosity likes diffs [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a new place rather than an old place. The eas…

(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the rest of the thread. Sorry, non-JS users.)

"I've swapped a different interrogative pronoun into the title, and have downweighted the generic subthreads which were rising to the top like bloated balloons and crowding out more interesting discussion (as typically happens in these cases)."

that feels super gross, I love mostly passively reading HN, but manipulation like that because basically it sounds like you don't want to see stuff you've seen before ...

poor decision.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#314

Post by lovelyviking »

dang wrote: post #334
dang wrote: post #127

All: please let's try to avoid repeating the generic discussion about how being on someone else's platform leaves you vulnerable to someone else. It's not wrong, of course, but it's been repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation. The goal on HN is curious conversation. Curiosity likes diffs [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a new place rather than an old place. The eas…

(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the rest of the thread. Sorry, non-JS users.)

>Curiosity likes diffs [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a new place rather than an old place.

How downvotes encourage that? I mean it can be abused and is abused for bullying opinions that some people do not want to hear.

There are some interesting opinions reflecting exactly this "Curiosity likes diffs" that get downvoted and how it encourages to write something interesting if it will be invisible and become deleted anyway just because it's not in the trend or too different.

Or if I get downvoted for stating the facts I observe. In theory it should sparkle curiosity! Not shutting up the facts using downvotes. Once I've experienced getting downvoted for stating the facts it's not really encouraging to say what I think is really there.

Can we remove downvotes and leave only upvotes? Or can we limit downvotes to some degree so at least somewhere in the end of the threat you can still read them. I mean at leat let me read those downvoted opinions, it's not too comfortable to read almost white on white and it's annoying.

May be we can put a red line in the end of the thread and put some comments beyond that line to let know those have been downvoted a lot. But let me read those, at least we can learn why they have been downvoted.

I appreciate your work. Indeed HN is a unique place and supports curiosity to some good degree. I just wish it to encourage it more and I think people need some more safety for this.

I observe that if people want to say what they really think they just create temporary account just to express that specific opinion because new accounts are protected from downvotes as I understand. This observation should be worrying I think if we wish to encourage "diffs" and "unexpected".

For now I've learned that saying something really different here would get downvotes and this is not what I wish to learn here.

I wish to explore concepts that I am not sure are correct and I wish get answers helping me to explore them. Not downvotes that tell me mostly nothing about the concept.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#315

Post by geerlingguy »

cko wrote: post #304
rtpg wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing I've heard is "1,000 views = $1". I don't know how true that is anymore but it's my metric. Mark Brown, of Game Maker's Toolkit, puts out vids on Youtube that get a couple hundred thousand views (1 or 2 vids a month). So he could theoretically get a couple hundred from those. But his Patreon following nets him a couple thousand a month ($11k!) When you have niche content you can end up getting way more per…

Youtube ad rates seem really high for the personal finance dudes. Graham Stephan and Andre Jikh come to mind. I think that genre allows for showing those scammy get rich quick motivational guru type ads, which pay well. Everyone else has to be sponsored by ExpressVPN and CuriosityStream.

And ridge wallet, apparently.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#316

Post by geerlingguy »

graeme wrote: post #238
simias wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and you can also have videos delivered there Did he break that down publicly or do you get your info from elsewhere? I've always been curious to know what a typical high profile youtuber income flow looks like, and how much they're really tied to Youtube.

Just a guess knowing how low Youtube ad rates are and how Grey has mentioned he switched over his income from ad sponsorships to patreon. And Patreon income is public.

You can hide the metrics on your public Patreon page.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#317

Post by gerash »

dang wrote: post #127

All: please let's try to avoid repeating the generic discussion about how being on someone else's platform leaves you vulnerable to someone else. It's not wrong, of course, but it's been repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation. The goal on HN is curious conversation. Curiosity likes diffs [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a new place rather than an old place. The eas…

I agree with your action. Letting more curious and fresh comments get buried under the more predictable and repetitive ones would be a disservice to the site visitors.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#318

Post by dang »

lovelyviking wrote: post #314
dang wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the rest of the thread. Sorry, non-JS users.)

>Curiosity likes diffs [1], not generics [2, 3]. Try to comment in a way that leads to a new place rather than an old place. How downvotes encourage that? I mean it can be abused and is abused for bullying opinions that some people do not want to hear. There are some interesting opinions reflecting exactly this "Curiosity likes diffs" that get downvoted and how it encourages to write something interesting if it will…

Sorry, but I'm not clear on what downvotes have to do with this. Are you responding to what I said about downweighting? That just means that we lower the subthread's position on the page.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#319

Post by dang »

monkeywork wrote: post #312
dang wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the rest of the thread. Sorry, non-JS users.)

"I've swapped a different interrogative pronoun into the title, and have downweighted the generic subthreads which were rising to the top like bloated balloons and crowding out more interesting discussion (as typically happens in these cases)." that feels super gross, I love mostly passively reading HN, but manipulation like that because basically it sounds like you don't want to see stuff you've seen before ... poor…

If you love reading HN, then you love the HN that includes us downweighting generic subthreads, because we've been doing that for years.

'Manipulation' and 'moderation' and 'curation' and so on refer to the same thing, just with different emotional valences. We're not trying to be manipulative per se, but it takes human attention to prevent the system from falling into its failure modes.

It would be wonderful (especially for us!) if community action plus software were all that was neeeded for an optimal solution, but sadly they're just not. There needs to be a third component: humans who pay attention to the site as a whole and jiggle it so it doesn't degenerate. That's what we mean by moderation.

When that third, human component is working well, it fades into the background and creates an impression that the system is regulating itself. That's a sort of paradise mode. But then when moderation shows up intrusively (as in my comment above), some readers feel like we're interfering with the system that exists. Actually we're already part of the system that exists, and if we weren't doing what we do, the whole system would be very different.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#320

Post by cmeacham98 »

tux1968 wrote: post #311
cmeacham98 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. Sorry, I shouldn't have used a bad hypothetical about muscles and should have just explicitly said "intersex people". Regardless, here's a page that documents examples of what I mean, including in high-profile events like the Olympics: https://en.w…

Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play. Since they are not biologically male or female, the correct thing to do might be to create a third division instead of tryin…

> Assumed that we were talking about biological men, who identify as female in gender, competing in women's sport. If we're talking about biologically non-binary individuals, it is indeed a difficult conversation about how to be equitable with them and still respect everyone's sense of fair play.

Re-read my above edit about hyperandrogenous women. These are biological women who simply have a medical condition that makes their body produce more hormones than normal, and major sports organizations like the IOC have banned them.

My point is that insisting we draw the lines across biological sex results in special cases like that, because the actual group of people we are trying to exclude is those with a certain biological advantage, and that group does not match up exactly with "biological men".

> And if a person who isn't clearly biologically-female does dominate in a woman's division, the natural response will be to say that they have an unfair advantage and don't really belong; it's not obvious how to avoid that catch-22.

Here's my answer: stop pretending they are "(biological) women's sports" and actually define the rules in relation to what you are trying to prevent (ex: set a max testosterone level). This instantly closes all loopholes because it directly addresses the problem rather than attempts to indirectly address it via the imprecise measurement of bio sex.

At least at the top level, this entirely solves the problem in my opinion. A bigger problem I don't have an immediate solution for is lower level of competition - it is obviously unrealistic to expect someone to get a testosterone test to play intermural basketball at their local high school.

Post reply on HN