Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 295 posts

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#261

Post by [deleted] »

maxencecornet wrote: post #126
rainbowmverse wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever your perspective on Brendan Eich's views[0], anything he's in charge of is a powder keg waiting to blow up. Brave/BAT will never go far while this conflict remains. [0] Which he refused to clarify, leaving people to make heuristic decisions based on available info and personal experience with homophobia. He is, of course, free to think and feel however he wants and not share details. Others are free to decid…

>powder keg waiting to blow up I don't get it, what do you mean ? Is this related to his homophobia ? I don't understand why so many people can't judge Eich without pointing his homophobia, how is this even related to his tech abilities ?. The guy is a visionary, I mean he was defending privacy when privacy wasn't an even a mainstream issue, he invented in-browser scripting BAT will be mainstream, no doubt about this…

[deleted]

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#262

Post by vinceguidry »

nailer wrote: post #260
vinceguidry wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feels to me like a distinction without a difference. Public arts funding has always been something we want more of.

Then it sounds like you'd be OK with the BBC moving to a PBS style funding model. Great, me too.

I don't know what part of "more public arts funding" made you think that, but whatevs.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#263

Post by ctraynor »

mrtksn wrote: post #47
ctraynor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing seems to be pretty much exactly polarization. You get one set of creators who want monetary gain and so their content fits within certain limits. Over time this will create more similar content as they watch what works for other people. The other set of creators have different goals and don't care about monetary gain. The popular parts of this content will also tend to local maximum based on th…

An iPhone unboxing video is not a polar opposite of a video complaining about feminists. I wouldn't call this polarisation even if it can be described as the polarisation of income models because my concern is about the content of the videos. I find it disturbing to see comments on HN completely disregarding the content and context and default to monetary optimisation. I believe that people and their creations are wh…

The content of two videos don't need to disagree with each other for the general effect to be called polarization.

The polarization isn't about income models, it's about the different kinds of content (light hearted safe content that aligns with advertisers vs extreme content that doesn't). I may have confused things by mentioning gain. The different goals of the creators was just my basic explanation as to why similar content continues being created because the effect is already in place.

I find it disturbing that you disregard the effect of capital. Advertisers are 100% focused on monetary optimization, and they're very good at driving creators to what will work best for them.

Of course content and context is important. But, money drives the content creation. Even when it isn't used to pay for the original content. Advertisers want impressions and clicks. Content creators want more viewers. The type of content aligns with advertisers goals -> money becomes involved -> more similar content. And other creators see this and want part of it.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#264

Post by ctraynor »

Fnoord wrote: post #55
ctraynor wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing seems to be pretty much exactly polarization. You get one set of creators who want monetary gain and so their content fits within certain limits. Over time this will create more similar content as they watch what works for other people. The other set of creators have different goals and don't care about monetary gain. The popular parts of this content will also tend to local maximum based on th…

> What you're describing seems to be pretty much exactly polarization. [...] It is, but its also more. OP wrote: > The moment that you make a content that advertisers might find controversial you risk losing your reward for that content so advertising financed media fails to capture anything beyond the mainstream entertainment. This described self-censorship. Wikipedia has a nice article about that, including many ex…

Yes self censorship is part of the system.

It's a process that maintains the existing polarization.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#265

Post by pjc50 »

rectang wrote: post #241
pjc50 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the faction is "hostile to the idea of content creators being rewarded" per se, but people are hostile to content middlemen being rewarded, and they're hostile to what I call "content prevention services": the real work of MPAA et al is not in distributing content, but in preventing content from being distributed.

They're fine with content creators selling t-shirts, but they are hostile to the idea of creators being compensated for the distribution of their creations, or having any control at all over the propagation of their work -- because that necessarily constrains the ability to copy "information" at will. The big winners in a world without copyright are ISPs, who achieve instant vertical integration of both content and d…

> that necessarily constrains the ability to copy "information" at will.

Well, yes. The alternative would have been to give the music and video industry a total veto over all consumer electronics, including computers, all operating systems, all content manipulation software, and so on. This would also have included repeated charges for moving media between devices and premiums for certain types of use; setting a song as your ringtone would cost several dollars, for example. There would be no Spotify and no Netflix. There might not be a Youtube, but if there was it would be impossible to watch it on Linux using only Free software. There might be iPods, but you'd have to re-buy all your music for each device. There might not even be videotapes. The end-user lockin would be at absurd levels.

The only middle ground is a scorched no-mans-land.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#266

Post by ForHackernews »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #194
maxencecornet wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>likely only people interested in blockchain stuff has Not sure, Furious Pete has moved his audience to Dtube and he is a fitness vlogger >On that note, are there any mainstream blockchain based sites or apps right now? Would be interesting to know I think that Circle is the most mainstream blockchain based app right now, because no one using it know that it's blockchain-based ! https://www.circle.com https://en.wiki…

Do you have any idea how Circle works? I guess nobody knows it's blockchain-based because it's instant and has no fees, which doesn't sound like a blockchain. Are they just making a loss and swallowing all the risk (covering fees and transfering real cash before any blockchain confirmations) or is something else going on?

I doubt they're doing anything on a blockchain, unless it's a "private blockchain" (aka database)

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#267

Post by mrtksn »

ctraynor wrote: post #263
mrtksn wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An iPhone unboxing video is not a polar opposite of a video complaining about feminists. I wouldn't call this polarisation even if it can be described as the polarisation of income models because my concern is about the content of the videos. I find it disturbing to see comments on HN completely disregarding the content and context and default to monetary optimisation. I believe that people and their creations are wh…

The content of two videos don't need to disagree with each other for the general effect to be called polarization. The polarization isn't about income models, it's about the different kinds of content (light hearted safe content that aligns with advertisers vs extreme content that doesn't). I may have confused things by mentioning gain. The different goals of the creators was just my basic explanation as to why simil…

No, I don't disregard the effect of capital. Actually I clearly said that the capital influences the content, just on the next sentence.

Anyway, the content is a cultural product and if not treated as such you'll end up losing your business to someone who does. In that case, if the blockchain people figure out a way that to reward content in a different way than pleasing advertisers then there's a huge opportunity to disrupt Youtube.

At the end of the day, despite what your analytics software says, it's not just impressions what your product gets - it's people watching videos. Content creators don't necessarily want more viewers, they want more influence or more money or more appreciation.

After all, there's a reason why don't consume the same content since the invention of camera and advertisements.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#268

Post by Mindwipe »

ada1981 wrote: post #247
Mindwipe wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Which is quite common (Scrubs for example has had to re-edit library music into most of it's episodes for most uses, instead of the original tracks).

What a pain in the ass. If you own the song, seems like you'd want to avoid leaving money on the table. I wonder how common relicensing is vs. editing.

The main issue is that it's very rare for someone to "own" a song. The publishing, label, composition, mechanical and performance rights might all belong to different entities in different territories and sometimes even in different windows. Relicensing is pretty common for films, but less common for TV, because there's less margin. And collective licensing for broadcast happens in lots of territories and not for on-demand or internet distribution.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#269

Post by kelnos »

tjoff wrote: post #113
kelnos wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll grant you #2 since tastes vary and even the catalog varies from month to month. But for the vast majority of people, #1 isn't true, and #3 is irrelevant. Neflix's (growing) subscriber numbers are all the evidence you need for that.

That #1 and #3 is "acceptable" is simply because there are no (legal) alternatives.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for, then. Your wish for the ability to "legally pirate" content makes no sense, since by definition that's an oxymoron.

Re: YouTube and Facebook Are Losing Creators to Blockchain-Powered Rivals

#270

Post by tjoff »

kelnos wrote: post #269
tjoff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That #1 and #3 is "acceptable" is simply because there are no (legal) alternatives.

I'm not really sure what you're looking for, then. Your wish for the ability to "legally pirate" content makes no sense, since by definition that's an oxymoron.

What I'm saying is that pirating is still much more convenient and results in a vastly superior experience than paying. Which is rather sad.
Post reply on HN