220
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
220 points (93.0% liked)
Technology
59174 readers
867 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So, rather than having some revenue coming in from YouTube, they’d rather force everyone to use their own website? Do they not understand that not everyone watches YouTube on a computer? Some exclusively use the YouTube app on their phones, TVs, or game consoles.
I dunno. It’s not as if it costs them anything to host the videos on YouTube. Seems odd to completely cut off a revenue source like that.
The trouble is, if the have the content on YouTube, people will just watch that - even if RT asks them not to. People will always take the most comfortable path to a goal, if they only host on their site, then anyone who wants to watch their stuff has to go on their apps or their website.
Basically they're betting that they have a loyal enough fan base to follow them off YouTube, but recognizing that they won't do it if they don't have to. Whether or not their viewership stays is another question, but honestly it's not that out there. I feel like people have already forgotten that this is how the internet worked for most of its history. Some Gen Z folks are just gonna have to learn how to use more than one app to consume all their content
We need an RSS-like feed of websites like this that you can watch from a centralized feed. That'd be cool.
That way you could "subscribe" to a website and have their videos aggregate on to a single video library app, just like how RSS is for content feeds. RSS does not handle video though, and I want to avoid actually going to the source website.
theoretically they could provide an embedded video link I suppose and the centralized viewer could use that.
The trouble is that most content creators like RT aren't going to want that either, because the whole point is that they want to be able to serve ads and whatnot to pay the bills - plus they'd very much prefer people go to their site so that they continue watching RT content, instead of just watching one thing and moving on. Ultimately the "perfect" solution is going to have to strike a middle ground between what consumers want and creators need
That's why this solution would also require some sort of standardized advertising integration. I think every provider and content creator would want this. The standardization would of course let them choose the frequency and aggressiveness of the ads, or they just wouldn't participate altogether.
And also that people fed up with it being missing from YouTube don't just start reuploading them without permission.
They definetely have the resources to monitor for that and report it - whether or not YouTube acts on the reports is always an open question though
Jokes on you I use Plex to consume all my content
Cool? What exactly does that have to do with my comment?
It's one app
They have apps for phone, TV, and game consoles, though.
And, as far as I’ve always known, those apps are awful. I haven’t checked in awhile though.
YouTube ain't much better, even if you pay for it.
Maybe they figure they'll get more revenue per-view through their website, and by removing their videos from YouTube they'll drive enough new viewers there to make up for the loss.
Let's see how that works, I guess.