Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

I have a creator friend who was telling me that newswire agencies are gaming a loophole in YT’s copyright policy to extort creators. Basically, they threaten takedowns unless the creator pays up. Even when creators argue their use falls under "fair use" for reporting, YT’s 3 strike policy doesn’t care. Three strikes and your channel is dead - no nuance. They let rightsholders file strikes at their will & it’s on the creator (or the courts) to fight it out. Guess who usually blinks first?

Also this looks like a global grift. Came across Asian newswires picking up on this playbook - licensing clips at premium prices under the implicit threat of a strike.

I mean, YT could fix this, but they won’t. they benefit either way. Creators are stuck between losing their life's work and paying up just to stay online.

i meant anonymous as in "a user can receive a link to a video and watch it without having to log in" as well as "there's a list of content on the homepage to watch" - the same way youtube works if you go via private browsing.

> OK so my thing is that all of this is just too hard. Give me ONE program to run that does everything. [...]

Right, I agree. I'm an infra sort of person so this comes naturally. But i will try to summarize it (fediverse) in a non-geeky way: A non-creator can go on any of the existing servers and get an account if they desire - this allows them to follow the content creators they enjoy, and also helps with discovery of new content. Fediverse.party is a site that will help find a server that isn't mastodon.social. oh and you mentioned apps; those exist, but you need a homeserver. most of them probably default to creating an account on mastodon.social; i guess. You don't need to be on peertube to subscribe to a creator that uses peertube to publish - that's the key, here.

i have a little bit more faith that people can ditch youtube, by navigating this "novel" platform.

Content creators may have to wait for someone who isn't as lazy as i am to promote the "N click hosting platform for your videos" where N is small. If you create content, you might have to pay, there's no real way around that if we want to ditch youtube. There is a benefit to paying, though, and it doesn't have to be a lot, you can probably use a $5 VPS (as the saying goes) to start. If some large content creator wants to move over, they probably can afford to spend more, and it won't hurt them at all. Yes, youtube hosting is free, but it comes with caveats (such as TFA, but also losing access to your account for unknown reasons, and so on). Or they can join a peertube (or whatever) and hope the host remains online.

I know you want "one app" - there's some traction https://docs.joinpeertube.org/#/use-third-party-application

note: we're not content creators but we are a "host" and we pay $300/month for our racked stuff, all-in. That's not out of reach for the likes of someone like Louis Rossman, who really ought be moving off youtube; or AvE, or RedLetterMedia. It's going to take some big creators at least "simulcasting" on some other service for a while before it catches on; i just hope this catching on happens before apple, facebook, amazon (oops twitch), or microsoft start a video hosting platform with their spare disks.

Apparently your memory is better than mine; filecoin allowed one to "rent out" their unused storage. What i was thinking of was some other "proof of capacity" coin, where you didn't need a decent internet connection to mine/hold coins, just disk space. the software itself actually mined by writing hash or whatever to the disk. Copilot mentioned "burstcoin" but i've never heard of that. And filecoin apparently was based on ipfs; so i wonder if it's still going or if someone can reboot it.

it certainly didn't have good marketing campaign...

You can show silencer disconnected from firearm, connected to firearm but showing moment you screwing it to end of barrel and your video is banned. There are dozens rules that are so vague that if YT wants he can remove any gun related content.

This is problem YT is not willing to fix because collateral damage costs are peanuts comparing to beeing sued and loose because some real illegal content slip trough filter. I don't expect any improvement here because there is no business justification.

While you can put an mp4 file on a webserver and call it a day, it'll most likely be a pretty bad experience for the users.