this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
6 points (61.5% liked)

guns

1703 readers
27 users here now

Keep it civil.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
Aliendelarge@lemmy.world
6
Youtube is intent on destroying itself: ‪@hickok45‬ could use your support [11:06 | JUL 17 24 | Louis Rossmann] (youtu.be)
submitted 2 years ago by jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world to c/guns@lemmy.world
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17700249

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/17699965

I use this channel to post repair videos from Rossmann Repair Group Inc

I also discuss random things of interest to me. This is, and always will be, my personal variety show.

I teach Macbook component level logic board repair from a common sense, everyman's perspective. I try to make it seem viable, and entertaining. I also go over business concepts & philosophy that will be important to running & maintaining a sustainable, profitable business.

Summary

  1. The speaker expresses frustration with YouTube's decisions, feeling that the platform does not focus on improving the experience for content creators that viewers want to see.
  2. They mention a specific content creator who provides responsible firearm use and ownership content, which they believe is valuable.
  3. The speaker criticizes YouTube's new firearm policy, which could potentially lead to the removal of a significant portion of creators' content.
  4. They argue that YouTube should support and promote responsible firearm content instead of unfairly targeting it.
  5. The speaker discusses the issue of media companies not effectively moderating their comment sections, contrasting their own lack of resources with the financial capabilities of larger companies like ABC and CBS.
  6. The speaker criticizes YouTube for focusing on certain issues like firearm ownership instead of addressing persistent problems like sex bots and scamming ads.
  7. They emphasize the importance of finding ways to navigate these issues in the current digital landscape.
  8. The speaker expresses frustration about being scammed by someone named Mr. Roberts, who was recommended for investment.
  9. They question the motives behind certain policies on a website and express annoyance at the lack of viewership despite spending time editing videos.
  10. The speaker also mentions a comparison between Google's Anti-Trust lawyers and lawyers who do not understand an API.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Frankly, I'd rather see one of the following two things happen:

  • YouTube letting any content up that is legal in a given jurisdiction, and provide end users filtering ability. If they need to spin some content out to a separate website for brand management reasons, fine. It's not just firearms or whatever is the controversy of the day. YouTube is such a widely-used platform that having content restricted creates issues for other users. If there are restrictions, it's just on a "useless noise" grounds, like someone uploading enormous amounts of video that nobody is viewing.

  • Content that doesn't fit within YouTube's content restrictions move to other platforms that are available to content creators and consumers. The problem here is the financial side of things. Yes, the Fediverse has PeerTube, but that doesn't have anything like the capacity to provide YouTube-scale service, and I don't see where the money to do so would come from. Google has figured out how to provide make a return on YouTube via mining user data and showing ads and some premium subscriptions. I don't think that given the bandwidth costs associated with video, YouTube can be nearly as readily-replaced as Reddit. Maybe it's possible to get commercial service from a provider; that's the route that Usenet mostly wound up taking.

    Additionally, a number of YouTube content creators do so because Google pays them for views of their content; for them, this isn't just a volunteer project. To make an alternative that also permits for professional content creators practical, it has to have a way to also compensate professional content creators, which means that it has to generate revenue one way or another to pay professional content creators.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 4 points 2 years ago

Yes, PeerTube doesn't have monetization, but Hickock45 in particular is in trouble because of all the sponsorship they've gotten from other sources. They aren't being shut down because they're a gun channel, but because they get sponsorship from gun businesses, which they promote in their videos.

I don't know what Hickock45's revenue stream looks like. But they say themselves, at issue is YouTube saying that mentioned sponsors can't be gun-related. What's really shitty about Hickock45 is the decade of content that has always been acceptable to YouTube, and which now is retroactively at risk because of the sponsorship rule changes.

My feeling is that if H45's external sponsors are so valuable, they could make a go on PeerTube. Or, if YouTube's revenue is so good, they can drop mentioning the external sponsors. I'd rather they just move everything to PeerTube, old content and all, and give YT the finger. But I suspect that's too costly for them. And there's no way they can go back and re-edit a decade's worth of material to remove all sponsor mentions; that's patently absurd.