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

321–330 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#321

Post by lovelyviking »

dang wrote: post #318
lovelyviking wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Downvotes hide your opinion if people do not like it.

It's not encouraging to write something different if it will be invisible/deleted anyway.

And if it's not because it wasn't accurate or good but because some people simply trying to shut up some facts/opinions then it's not encouraging to say something really different

This leads to say standard things that you 'know' will be supported.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#322

Post by cmeacham98 »

roenxi wrote: post #309
nomdep wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are talking about body, not mind. Transgender women are women with a biological man body (otherwise we wouldn’t have this conversation.) So it is unfair for women with biological women body. The whole point of separating biological women of biological men in sports is to prevent that.

It is sport. The strong/fit win and the weak lose. It was never meant to be fair with respect to physical ability. If we start from the premise that it is transphobic to say "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." then it is pretty clear that "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are biological men." is also transphobic. Otherwise we could end online transph…

I think perhaps you're getting tripped up by the English language, which is understandable because it's annoyingly vague in this context.

The words male/female can refer to either gender or biological sex.

Gender means what you likely already think it does.

Biological sex is what genitalia someone has (or more generally for animals as a whole whether you produce sperm or eggs). I'm not a huge fan of this term because it kinda seems to imply transgenderism is "non-biological" but it's the most commonly understood term so I use it begrudgingly.

"Trans women are men" is most obviously interpreted as a transphobic statement about gender.

"Trans women are biological men" is just a fact and is in no way transphobic.

> Otherwise we could end online transphobia with a couple of sed scripts in a chrome extension.

Words have meaning outside of analyzing their dictionary definitions or a single sentence at a time. Sed scripts cannot account for context, intent, etc. Similarly, whether or not some speech is transphobic is dependent on these factors too.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#324

Post by Jyaif »

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.

> No other enterprise can burn so many billions of dollars for so many years to corner the market.

No other enterprise, besides Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and all the streaming companies (Netflix, Disney, ...).

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#325

Post by XorNot »

wffurr wrote: post #68
XorNot wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to need you to think very carefully about how much you trust the government to protect the public interest when it comes to dictating how a media platform operates. The government is unlikely to be able to dictate algorithm changes, but reacting to and forcing favorable behaviors to the current regime to be preserved is certainly within their power.

What third avenue for protecting the public interest do you recommend between corporate control and government regulation? In a democracy, government is theoretically the mechanism by which public concerns are aired and addressed.

There's a difference between ensuring competition and effectively nationalizing a company's business practices because they happen to be successful. Declaring Google search results a "public space" is the latter and leads us down a pretty obvious path as to what's actually going to happen with that.

If we wanted to encourage competition it would be an idea to start thinking more carefully about which bits of infrastructure should be in competition: i.e. stop letting social media companys buy out other social media companies (there's no reason Facebook should've been allowed to acquire WhatsApp given that they also had Messenger), and maybe require Google to run Chrome as an open-source project to prevent them vertically integrating the experience of "web browsing" under related technologies.

This can, and probably should include, public funding for alternative open-source products under the foundation model for different web technologies and vital services.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#326

Post by zpeti »

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…

Please everyone don’t forget google search positioning too. This is massive. Google have pushed YouTube into their search for a long time, basically building YouTube doing it. That brought insane traffic to YouTube videos and makes YouTube the place for videos.

THIS is the antitrust of google, and where authorities should strike them. They built a video platform and destroyed others using their 90% market power in another market.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#327

Post by lifeisstillgood »

jjbinx007 wrote: post #142
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #39

We are still a very long way from distributed discovery. Back 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…

I was just thinking the other day that a lot of us in the 90s chose our ISPs based on how much web space was provided by the ISP, how many news groups the ISP gave access to, number of included email addresses, etc. Even the first broadband providers I used offered web space. I can't remember when it stopped being a thing.

Trust me, you are unusual if you used the webspace. (Admittedly it was a marketing comparator - if you did not offer it you lost potential customers,) I cannot remember the numbers but vanishingly few people used it once and even less were regular uploaders. Even the power users (like my colleagues) would upload a nights photos from their digital cameras. At some point they must have moved to flicker et al.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#328

Post by joelthelion »

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.)

Have you considered something like [ROBOT 9000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Munroe#Other_projects) for HN? Not perfect, but it could be fun and a nice reminder to stay original.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#329

Post by yoz-y »

vl wrote: post #153
graeme wrote: post #70

I follow CGP Grey’s stuff and it’s been interesting and instructive to see how he diversified. * His Youtube channel is his main platform * However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and you can also have videos delivered there * He also earns income from a podcast, Cortex * The Podcast has its own brand of sellable things, currently journals and Tshirts * He had a second podcast, hello internet, curre…

CGP Grey is strange, so to say. He effectively abandoned Hello Internet. They once mentioned that they have 900K subs. Grey fully controlled HI, and it was way more popular than Cortex. If he wants to diversify so much abandoning project like this just doesn’t make sense. Also he has no basic decency to announce cancelation and left Tims hanging, for many of whom it was the podcast.

IIRC in the first 10 episodes they did say that if the podcast ever ended it would be like this.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#330

Post by yoz-y »

jeromenerf wrote: post #303
graeme wrote: post #70

I follow CGP Grey’s stuff and it’s been interesting and instructive to see how he diversified. * His Youtube channel is his main platform * However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and you can also have videos delivered there * He also earns income from a podcast, Cortex * The Podcast has its own brand of sellable things, currently journals and Tshirts * He had a second podcast, hello internet, curre…

> So it is layers and layers of redundancy, built on a mix of other platforms and also two he controls directly (email and rss) Not really. There is some kind of "channel" redundancy but no "revenue streams" diversification outside ads and patreon. Without actually paying for content, one can usually find: - google ads, low effort low reward - brand sponsorships, high effort, fixed reward - patreon subscriptions, hig…

Eh. If you count revenue streams:

- podcast ads - podcast subscriptions - merch - sponsorships - YouTube ads - nebula subscriptions

That’s pretty diversified and it includes paying for content three times.

Post reply on HN