YouTube puts a Strike for showing how to setup Jellyfin

Doesn't work without commercial large players such as Cloudflare, S3 or Akamai backing you either.

IME, even if you're "just" hosting a website for a car dealership and have a video showing a tour of the shop, it will end up being targeted. Misconfigured spiders hitting the video again and again and AGAIN, probably to harvest it for AI training, legitimate DDoS attacks just using videos as something efficient to cause you large bandwidth costs...

If you were to rebuild YouTube, aka not just hosting your own cat photos and videos like with a blog, but also the social element, it gets even worse. All the problems from above, plus you gotta deal with regular spammers and scammers now, plus PPV-porn spammers, PLUS all the CSAM spreaders who are constantly looking for new ways to host their shit in the clearnet.

You can't just go and run your own self-host these days, not if you are not prepared to deal with all sorts of abusive behavior yourself.

If only there was some website which could find, and gleam metadata from videos, and provide such info in a list, with a text based query.

Oh wait! Google!

Well surely as an independent search engine with no desire to exhibit anti-trust practices, they do spend as much time developing algos for scraping for independent video.

And as a search engine, working with webmasters to provide easy scraping of metadata, and better integration into their search results.

And ranking it higher than youtube when sensible.

Right?

Depends on whose problem you're trying to solve. Jeff Geerling probably transcends YouTube. His followers would go with him if he hosted video elsewhere. The value of YouTube is it gives the millions of other people trying to be Jeff Geerling the illusion that they too might someday have success like that.

It's not like any specific platform created celebrities. People making this kind of content with these kinds of followings existed before. Someone like Bob Vila was the Jeff Geerling of 40 years ago. The difference is then you needed to win the blessing of a television studio. Today, you need to win the lottery of dumb luck to go viral and you still need the blessing of whatever opaque algorithms YouTube uses to surface specific videos. For whatever reason, people with channels feel like they're more likely to do that compared to getting their own television show, presumably because it's at least easier to publish something nobody will watch rather than trying to pirate broadcast your own stream on airwaves you don't have a license for.

I don't think it's the network effects on the user side that is the real problem for YT. I saw a creator do a breakdown YT vs a bunch of other options and YT by far pays better per view. That would be the actual problem because if other platforms paid the same it's almost zero cost for a creator to post on both and see what happens. With YT paying a lot more every view elsewhere is a loss. That would make this a classic raising rivals cost competitive moat strategy not a network effects thing.