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

171–180 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#171

Post by vl »

random5634 wrote: post #164
vl wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Does google make or lose money on youtube? Based on the number of ads I see, I'd imagine they break even?

Hard to say for sure, since YT uses shared Google infrastructure, and effectively cost of some things can’t be calculated. (Basically it’s much cheaper than you or me can do ourselves).

But from what I understand, they burned money for many years and only very few years ago became profitable. But in some sense YT doesn’t really have to be profitable - for Google it’s more important to prop search itself, then to make money on YT.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#172

Post by [deleted] »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #131
Stevvo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8chan had the infamous /loli/ , it was dedicated entirely to child pornography. The only rule was it had to be 3D rendered or drawn/painted as opposed to photographic/video.

So not child pornography by the legal definition of U.S.A. law and most other jurisdictions. By your definition of child pornography, i.r.c., and Mangadex also feature child pornography, as well as Google search results and most mainstream pornography websites.

[deleted]

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#173

Post by konjin »

roenxi wrote: post #162
cmeacham98 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic. What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports b…

> What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".

Womb bearers needs special protections that former penis bearers do not need.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#174

Post by konjin »

tux1968 wrote: post #133
cmeacham98 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic. What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports b…

> I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not. > "Transgender women should not be in women's sports beca…

>So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not.

Should women who inject testosterone be banned from sports?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#175

Post by marshmallow_12 »

imwillofficial wrote: post #146
marshmallow_12 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you misunderstood me. a quick google search reveals that YouTube uses 15% of internet traffic. You suggest getting rid of YouTube and putting 15% extra workload onto google. you think that won't be an issue? as for the "very good" part, yes, youtube is extremely successful at aggregating and displaying useful videos. It is also extremely good at searching through its library and displaying individual users useful vid…

Thanks for the clarification! I disagree on youtube being very good at its job, however that is a very subjective assessment. I think as it stands now, you are correct, but I believe these sites will give rise to more decentralized video sharing infrastructure as people slowly see the need to control their own destinies.

What? through the medium of Google?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#176

Post by tux1968 »

konjin wrote: post #174
tux1968 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not. > "Transgender women should not be in women's sports beca…

>So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not. Should women who inject testosterone be banned from sports?

By and large such treatments are seen as cheating. Like Lance Armstrong oxygenating his blood before a race etc. Personally as long as it's a level playing field I'd say people should be allowed to do whatever they want. The only problem is that once you allow it, people who don't want to do it, feel compelled so they can participate.

There are arguments for and against.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#177

Post by gist »

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.)

> It's not wrong, of course, but it's been repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation.

Assumes there are no new readers on HN and that everyone reads almost everything and nothing needs repeating. Also it's very 'no noobies' as if anyone who is anyone should know the ropes already. And that is not the case.

And I've mentioned this before a few times so I will repeat. Why don't you have in your profile that you are a moderator? How would someone new to HN know why you are saying what you are saying and why you have the right to pin what you say at the top?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#178

Post by open-source-ux »

scrose wrote: post #23

I can’t help but wonder why services like Vimeo don’t come up more often when getting off of YouTube? It seems like Vimeo offers similar functionality already. Is there something about it that I’m missing / is it just not cool for content creators?

Independent short films, animation, motion graphics - this is what Vimeo is associated with and the image they have cultivated of their brand.

You'll find other types of content, but Vimeo is not try to compete with YouTube's content scope. You won't find 'How to unblock your kitchen sink with baking soda' on Vimeo, or 'Learn Javascript in 60 mins', but you'll find these (and dozens more) on YouTube.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#179

Post by surajama »

um_ya wrote: post #132
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…

There needs to be "content as a protocol" in the same way email is. If I don't like one email provider, I can always move to a different provider without losing access to all the user's that remain there. If I could make a Facebook post and have it's content propagate to other providers, websites would act more like UI filters rather than gatekeepers.

You are basically describing IPFS. Content-based addressing instead of location-based addressing. Allowing content to be decoupled from any single hosting platform

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#180

Post by celticninja »

konjin wrote: post #173
roenxi wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".

Womb bearers needs special protections that former penis bearers do not need.

This sort of comment is transphobic. It adds nothing to the conversation and is made just to demean a group of peeople you dislike.
Post reply on HN