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

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 803 posts

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#571

Post by timeon »

neogodless wrote: post #486
account42 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a bad experience at all compared to ads.

You may have missed the point of the parent comment. Without defining the experience you can call it better or worse than any random thing! But if the video stops every 0.1 seconds to buffer for two hours, is that better than stopping very 25 minutes for a 30 second ad? If the video must be 24 x 32 pixels for the bandwidth to be low enough for your server restrictions, is that worse than the above scenario but a 4k 6…

I think no video is better than one that starts with ad. At least for long term mental health.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#573

Post by genewitch »

carlosjobim wrote: post #532
genewitch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

value for value. https://value4value.info/ or ad rolls, who knows. monetization isn't my wheelhouse. podcasts have been doing this since the inception.

Without even the opportunity to make money, there's very little incentive for creators to spend time and effort making videos for these channels. The reason YouTube is huge is because they invite anybody in to try to get paid for their content, and nobody else does that. This is why most content which should be an article or even a podcast is instead posted as some guy talking in front of the camera on YouTube.

> ... they invite anybody in to try to get paid ...

I have over 100k views on youtube and i've received $0.00 from youtube. This is like "they invite anyone to try and pull the sword from the stone" or something.

however look from the other angle: People give their content freely to youtube, a content platform, which benefits youtube, because of this idea that "you might make it big." it's like scratch-offs.

Nearly all of the pieces to have the functional equivalent of youtube are there, even for micropayments based on viewership, adrolls, interstitial ads, "patreon-like crowd funding", i was just talking about the boring infra part. I talk about alternatives that exist now, or are alpha/beta stages, because i am hoping that someone, anyone, has the wherewithal to do something about it. I'm not a content creator except in the literal sense, maybe 100 videos on youtube, no cohesion. I have no need to spend time, talent, or treasure on hosting a VOD platform, because it would not benefit me, nor anyone i know personally. I host nextcloud, matrix, pastebin, minecraft, discord bots that remind people to take their medicine and allow them to journal about that and anything else, "wikis", subsonic (quite private). I used to meddle with video hosting, but not directly - syncthing so i could upload drone footage from my cellphone in the field, so that my friend could edit if he wanted before i publish somewhere.

read all of that as: "i've proven that this is all possible; further, i know it will scale. I will tell people about this, and someone with the spark can give it to the world, functional and shiny"

Note: youtube didn't start out paying uploaders. people uploaded because some people have a need or a desire to have other people look at them. Fame and notoriety can be narcotic. yes i know this is reductive.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#574

Post by Izkata »

pmarreck wrote: post #390
logifail wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense Do we know how many otherwise healthy children caught Covid and died from it? My impression from the official figures is that in most countries the number is vanishingly small if not zero.

Well, it's CERTAINLY not ZERO... I recall seeing numerous articles about overweight children dying of it, for example Remember that even polio only put like 1% of its victims into an iron lung

If you take the percentages from the CDC and multiply them out (and don't fall for the "polio" vs "paralytic polio" sleight of hand), it was way smaller than that - somewhere on the order of 0.01%.

The flu, for example, was always a worse risk than polio, people just became fearful of polio because we found a way to save some lives in a non-ideal way, which became very visible.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#575

Post by anticensor »

jorams wrote: post #180
znpy wrote: post #100

@geerlingguy: First things first: I'm on your side. But the whole content-creator industry should really start looking for and pushing alternatives to Youtube. Floatplane from LTT folks looks promising, I wish it got more attention. It seems that only Linus and Luke actually had the balls to come up with a business model and implement the darn thing. Otherwise you (and other content creators) sooner or later will hav…

Nebula[1] is an alternative to YouTube for and by youtubers. I'm fairly certain it's much bigger than Floatplane. It has ad-free versions of the creators' youtube videos, early access for new videos, and exclusive content. It seems to be pretty successful. It is also, like Floatplane, totally irrelevant without the pull from YouTube, because that's where the audience finds these creators in the first place. [1]: http…

Nebula lacks comments and livestreams, so it is more like Netflix.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#576

Post by driverdan »

intended wrote: post #542
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…

One thing I really wish, is that more people volunteered to moderate things. It’s a volunteer position, it’s needed for most of the communities we are part of, and doing this raises the floor of conversations across the board. The distance between the average view point on how free speech works, and the reality that content moderation forces you to contend with, is frankly gut wrenching. We need to be able to shorten…

Why would you volunteer your time to a for-profit company?

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#577

Post by Duwensatzaj »

ndsipa_pomu wrote: post #237
Duwensatzaj wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that comparing the UK to the PRC is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed that UK policing goes far beyond your example. Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran, reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam. Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics. Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween…

You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety. e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their he…

>provocative

So what?

>make people feel in fear for their own safety.

Private chats and bad taste Halloween costumes are designed to make people fear for their own safety?

At least you're honest about your censorship and oppression of anything anyone dislikes.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#578

Post by myrmidon »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #553
myrmidon wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a big disconnect in this debate, and a lot of it comes from framing and conflicting definitions. I'll try to describe this from my PoV: Zionism, to me, is just jewish-flavored nationalism. To me, the question "has Israel (the state) the right to exist" is almost nonsensical; I don't think that Italy, Germany, France or the US have any inherent "right" to exist, and the same would be true for Israel i…

>There are a lot of non-jews living within Israel's borders, and Israel (as a state) fails those people regularly (and, arguably, by design: it does not really want to protect interests of citizens that deviate from that jwewish national identity). I dont think this is well supported, or the source of conflict. The state seems to do a fairly good job of providing for citizens within boarders. Arab Israeli citizens ha…

Do you consider Westbank and/or Gaza a full state independent from Israel?

Because to me, those are (somewhat) autonomous regions under Israels control-- so still responsible for people living there.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#579

Post by Izkata »

shakna wrote: post #332
ekianjo wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But somehow the vaccines catch up on the strains before they come out?

They attack different things in the virus. Often multiple things at once. Which really should not be surprising.

You got it backwards: the vaccines specifically targeted only the spike protein, while natural infection created different antibodies against all parts of the virus.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#580

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gspencley wrote: post #432
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have…

> Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. > But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. There is no contradiction there. Imagine a forum about knitting. Someone, who has it in for the owners of this knitting forum (or perhaps even just a SPAM bot) starts posting illegal, or even just n…

> There is no reality where I will accept that…

Welcome to the club

> if I create something. I spend and risk my money on web hosting. I write the code...

You can create a forum in 20 minutes, it’s all open source and I did that when I was 14

All the ‘risk’ and ‘writing code’ is about fighting other platforms for attention, not providing a consumer good.

> ultimatum… in order to extract value from them that you did not earn

I am the consumer, the market exists for me and I pay for the whole party. If a business that harms customers is called a crime syndicate.

You might see this ultimatum in other areas too, like “you can’t sell baby food with lead in it, or you go to prison”

Post reply on HN