Video tutorials now on PeerTube

Post by underseacables » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:50 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #83

dilap wrote: post #41

Andrew Kelley of Zig also moved away from YouTube because of forced ads ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjz6xNO63mI ) YouTube is an amazing collection of knowledge, but it's unfortunate that it's in the hands of an entity whose primary goal and motivation is avarice. A degradation of the experience over time seems inevitable. How to organize human endeavors in a way that captures the innovation and superbly focused…

Consumers need to be able and willing to pay money rather than renting their eyeballs. (And creators need to be willing to pay for hosting/discovery.) If YouTube could make more money as a gated subscription site that charged for uploads and, say, $100/year to access, they'd be more than happy to do so.

Post by crazygringo » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

upofadown wrote: post #90

crazygringo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free , not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience? "Sovereignty" is a bizarre word here. It's a business deal . Nobody's ever "sovereign" in any exchange, it's either a good deal or not. If he wants to pay for hosting himself, then go ahead, but no need to act like it's a question of "sovereignty". Nobody's a king here.

The business deal used to be good. Now there is a sovereignty problem. The free part is not relevant here. We can't help that Google is having problems monetizing a service by first providing an acceptable service and then later changing the terms of the deal. Perhaps their business model is unrealistic.

Post by fouric » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #31

abacadaba wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the main holdup i think is truly effortless and secure, private, and widely accepted micropayments. there's plenty of stuff i'd be willing to pay for if it didn't involve creating yet another account and giving them my credit card info.

How would it work with not creating an account? Low-friction payment methods are here. Apple and Google Pay for example work pretty well. But if I pay for access to something today, how do you know it's me when I return a year later and want access again? A good password manager can make creating an account almost effortless. Maybe that's part of the solution.

Post by stickfigure » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #104

In the early days of TV, when the first broadcast licenses were being granted, there was a legislative proposal to make advertising on TV illegal. It was defeated, resulting in a century of TV that was largely a wasteland in the service of the tobacco and fast food industries. We have a political choice.

Post by ghaff » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 4:02 PM UTC

phkahler wrote: post #51

criddell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it work with not creating an account? Low-friction payment methods are here. Apple and Google Pay for example work pretty well. But if I pay for access to something today, how do you know it's me when I return a year later and want access again? A good password manager can make creating an account almost effortless. Maybe that's part of the solution.

>> Apple and Google Pay for example work pretty well. But if I pay for access to something today, how do you know it's me when I return a year later and want access again? Yet another reason why identity verification by default would make the net better. No spam, easy payments, elimination of middle-men for many use cases.