Blender is testing PeerTube after YouTube blocks their videos worldwide(blender.org)
blender.org
Blender is testing PeerTube after YouTube blocks their videos worldwide
https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blender-videos-worldwide/
442 comments
I made a video about this in January, before YouTube strongarmed Blender. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ksbTTXHw8
I am pretty dismayed to be this right. I didn't think YT would be nearly this aggressive in service of the ideas I outlined.
Basically, they take a cut off that activity. In some cases they could take most of or all the money, which is a clear win for them, but even when they pay out they're earning revenue on the transaction. It's been their core business model, so the problems with advocating an adfree behavior become obvious.
I would add that this becomes more urgent if they're in crisis. Makes me wish I could get the master copies I'd uploaded back, but there's no chance of that.
Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
I am pretty dismayed to be this right. I didn't think YT would be nearly this aggressive in service of the ideas I outlined.
Basically, they take a cut off that activity. In some cases they could take most of or all the money, which is a clear win for them, but even when they pay out they're earning revenue on the transaction. It's been their core business model, so the problems with advocating an adfree behavior become obvious.
I would add that this becomes more urgent if they're in crisis. Makes me wish I could get the master copies I'd uploaded back, but there's no chance of that.
Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
Eventually this is going to get them in trouble with the Sherman Antitrust Act.
From Wikipedia:
> "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.
It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. And now they're engaging in the type of abuse of customers that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to mitigate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
From Wikipedia:
> "Innocent monopoly", or monopoly achieved solely by merit, is perfectly legal, but acts by a monopolist to artificially preserve that status, or nefarious dealings to create a monopoly, are not. The purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses.
It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space. And now they're engaging in the type of abuse of customers that the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to mitigate.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
> It's pretty clear that Google used their dominant position(s) in web search and web advertising to then dominate the user-generated video space.
That's not particularly clear to me. YouTube was already pretty huge when Google bought them in 2006: according to Wikipedia, the fifth most popular website, albeit of a far smaller Web. Google, meanwhile, had their own video-uploading service, Google Video, which launched three months before YouTube but was not nearly as successful. Sure, there's no doubt that YouTube has benefitted massively from Google's resources in the decade since, including their willingness to let it run without a profit. But based on that history, it seems far from inevitable that Google would be the one to dominate video.
It also doesn't seem like YouTube's growth is all that directly linked to Google Search's monopoly status, other than in that the latter powered Google's profits (but there are plenty of sources of money in the world). Google Search's video results have always shown videos from all websites rather than being YouTube-specific; who knows what they might have done if there had been more serious competition, but there wasn't, so they don't have that particular blood on their hands. You could argue that Google used its Search leverage to promote Web videos in general, as opposed to some other form of media, but I don't know what other form would be or why it would be preferable to video. (Perhaps live video? There might be another universe in which justin.tv was successful early on, rather than waiting most of a decade for the unexpected explosion of Twitch. But I think that given the state of Internet connections at the time, it made more sense for YouTube to happen first.)
That's not particularly clear to me. YouTube was already pretty huge when Google bought them in 2006: according to Wikipedia, the fifth most popular website, albeit of a far smaller Web. Google, meanwhile, had their own video-uploading service, Google Video, which launched three months before YouTube but was not nearly as successful. Sure, there's no doubt that YouTube has benefitted massively from Google's resources in the decade since, including their willingness to let it run without a profit. But based on that history, it seems far from inevitable that Google would be the one to dominate video.
It also doesn't seem like YouTube's growth is all that directly linked to Google Search's monopoly status, other than in that the latter powered Google's profits (but there are plenty of sources of money in the world). Google Search's video results have always shown videos from all websites rather than being YouTube-specific; who knows what they might have done if there had been more serious competition, but there wasn't, so they don't have that particular blood on their hands. You could argue that Google used its Search leverage to promote Web videos in general, as opposed to some other form of media, but I don't know what other form would be or why it would be preferable to video. (Perhaps live video? There might be another universe in which justin.tv was successful early on, rather than waiting most of a decade for the unexpected explosion of Twitch. But I think that given the state of Internet connections at the time, it made more sense for YouTube to happen first.)
The internet today vs 12 years ago seems heavily biased towards video content. Different landscape, where Facebook and Google/YouTube now account for a majority of all internet traffic. If YouTube manipulates people, they’ll lose support and maybe risk a lawsuit. I’m not very familiar with the specifics here, but YouTube is the dominant video platform. If Facebook cleaned up their design and embraced an open web with public links, they could probably destroy YouTube.
I fail to see how this behavior helps artificially preserve their status as a monopoly or constitutes a nefarious dealing to create a monopoly, and the fact that Blender is using this opportunity to switch to another provider is not going to reinforce your point about YouTube being a monopoly.
No you're right, this particular behavior doesn't help to preserve their monopoly. It's evidence that they already have one.
Companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace don't typically go around driving away customers en masse. This is like something from 1990's Microsoft.
Companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace don't typically go around driving away customers en masse. This is like something from 1990's Microsoft.
Having a monopoly isn't illegal. Using monopoly powers in certain ways is, and this isn't one of those ways.
And yes, companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace drive away non-paying customers all the time. Because they're not paying, and so the slight chance of turning them into paying customers, or benefiting existing paying customers, is worth the loss.
And yes, companies who have to survive in a competitive marketplace drive away non-paying customers all the time. Because they're not paying, and so the slight chance of turning them into paying customers, or benefiting existing paying customers, is worth the loss.
In what sense is Blender a customer if they aren't monetizing their videos, though?
In the same sense an open source project is a customer of GitHub's. The exchange of money is not required for someone to be a customer of a service.
That's a user.
Customers pay money. Users provide data and marketing.
Well, strictly speaking, this is a legitimate dictionary definition that doesn't involve money:
> a person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal
[edit] Youtube has 3 kinds of customers (or users, if you wish): publishers, viewers and advertisers. It makes sense to separate them like that, but not based on a "pays/ does not pay" criterion. If PewDiePie is a customer, then most definitely Blender Foundation is a customer too.
> a person of a specified kind with whom one has to deal
[edit] Youtube has 3 kinds of customers (or users, if you wish): publishers, viewers and advertisers. It makes sense to separate them like that, but not based on a "pays/ does not pay" criterion. If PewDiePie is a customer, then most definitely Blender Foundation is a customer too.
If money is the criterion of being a customer then they are one by driving traffic to other monetized videos, via recommended feed, or via follow up searches, that would otherwise not happen.
Anyone having a YT channel will tell that ‘suggested video’ is a dominant traffic source so it’s not an edge case.
In sum, YT was already making money thanks to Blender videos.
Anyone having a YT channel will tell that ‘suggested video’ is a dominant traffic source so it’s not an edge case.
In sum, YT was already making money thanks to Blender videos.
They're moving to another provider. Do we have different definitions of monopoly? All this is evidence of is that YouTube are assholes.
Don't forget that Google owns the backbone that Youtube videos transit on for free. By leasing that dark fiber, they get peering agreements that effectively makes their ability to send bytes to the internet free. No one else has that ability.
Yes they do; you could buy it yourself if you wanted to. Nobody else having the scale or cash & willingness to do so is not the same thing as being unable to.
If I had a lever long enough, I could move the universe.
Right, but leasing dark fiber is quite common for many types of organization.
Google leases out dark fiber, not in, and in the process negotiates free peering agreements.
Sure, its clear to you and I. But we on HN aren't whom you have to convince.
Do you believe the US DOJ or more powerful states would go after Alphabet/google? That's the ones that count. I just can't see our current administration going that avenue.
Do you believe the US DOJ or more powerful states would go after Alphabet/google? That's the ones that count. I just can't see our current administration going that avenue.
Yeah I don't know. With this administration, anything is possible. There's lots of bad blood between silicon valley progressives and the Trump admin, too.
Silicon Valley progressives? Are you talking about RMS or something?
Are (American) liberals automatically progressive even if they collude to lower salaries, pay less taxes, and contribute to housing bubbles? Not to mention selling to the DoD and ICE.
Are (American) liberals automatically progressive even if they collude to lower salaries, pay less taxes, and contribute to housing bubbles? Not to mention selling to the DoD and ICE.
[deleted]
Oh, yeah, that act worked really well for the salary collusion.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
Alphabet/Google/Youtube will just pay the fine, as a cost of doing business.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
Alphabet/Google/Youtube will just pay the fine, as a cost of doing business.
No that will absolutely never happen, ever. Sorry to burst your bubble. It isn't even in the realm of possibility, spotting Bigfoot riding the lochness monster is more realistic.
Why? Honest question. You seem very certain, so you can probably explain?
Honestly no. It's incredibly obvious. There is no need for a detailed explanation of why Google will never face a 1930's antitrust lawsuit. It's simply not in the realm of reality. It was barely possible in the 90s.
There's more stuff like this happening these days. Saw this tweet yesterday:
https://twitter.com/AnneMunition/status/1008852515629105152
YouTube preventing Linus Tech Tips from advertising their non-YouTube videos/streams.
In other words, like you said:
> Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
https://twitter.com/AnneMunition/status/1008852515629105152
YouTube preventing Linus Tech Tips from advertising their non-YouTube videos/streams.
In other words, like you said:
> Bottom line: shots fired. You must work with YouTube the way they want you to work with YouTube, or you'll get punished.
I'm surprised why anyone is surprised by this or thinks it should be any other way. Google is running YouTube as a business and they're running it the way they believe will be the most profitable.
For some reason, people are still hanging onto a belief that Google cares about its users in ways other than to profit from them.
Of course, it could well be that people aren't surprised and are just highlighting the Google's behaviour towards certain channels.
For some reason, people are still hanging onto a belief that Google cares about its users in ways other than to profit from them.
Of course, it could well be that people aren't surprised and are just highlighting the Google's behaviour towards certain channels.
It's not particularly surprising given how shitty youtube's behaviour has been towards its content creators lately. It's just a reminder that nobody should accept it.
Kind of like sometimes a president's behaviour isn't surprising, but still deserves to be highlighted and nobody should accept it.
Kind of like sometimes a president's behaviour isn't surprising, but still deserves to be highlighted and nobody should accept it.
A fair comment. The only way people can refuse to accept their behaviour is by not giving YouTube their business (by either visiting the site or submitting content) and who's going to do that? It's YouTube :-/ It's their way or the highway (or Vimeo)
I watched your video and you made some great points.
As an aside, I have to wonder if you've thought through your desire to serve your website over HTTP instead of over HTTPS.
You noted that you use ad blocking software because ad networks are a common route by which malware propagates. HTTP websites comprise another salient target for malware. If I am at a coffee shop with a compromised wifi router and I load your HTTP website, that compromised router can inject malware into your page and my browser will run it, just like it would have run malware served by an ad server. If your website were served over HTTPS, the router wouldn't have been able to do that.
I imagine you knew all of that, and you're right that HTTPS does have some problems, but trying to avoid those problems by opting for HTTP is exchanging those problems for (imho) much bigger problems.
As an aside, I have to wonder if you've thought through your desire to serve your website over HTTP instead of over HTTPS.
You noted that you use ad blocking software because ad networks are a common route by which malware propagates. HTTP websites comprise another salient target for malware. If I am at a coffee shop with a compromised wifi router and I load your HTTP website, that compromised router can inject malware into your page and my browser will run it, just like it would have run malware served by an ad server. If your website were served over HTTPS, the router wouldn't have been able to do that.
I imagine you knew all of that, and you're right that HTTPS does have some problems, but trying to avoid those problems by opting for HTTP is exchanging those problems for (imho) much bigger problems.
It's simpler than that. I'm hosting websites on Hostgator, my income is that Patreon I mention in the video, and though I have a little knowledge on webmastering it's not much compared to what I make content for. I don't know how, and I'm seeing high prices for getting HTTPSed up, though I have a mental note that using Cloudflare might be a way to do it. That said, a service like that seems like it would cost a bunch of money too. I think I can't afford to use HTTPS, and I think this may be a feature not a bug to some people out there controlling things.
I could well be wrong. I'm hoping for the reasons you mention that some benevolent hacker people work out how to bring this to people for free and make it simple to do.
I could well be wrong. I'm hoping for the reasons you mention that some benevolent hacker people work out how to bring this to people for free and make it simple to do.
Sometimes HTTPS makes sense and sometimes HTTP makes sense. HTTPS everywhere NEVER makes sense.
It's 2018. Https absolutely makes sense in all circumstances... everywhere for everything. Http should not even be considered as an option.
Well, they picked the wrong org to gamble on strongarming in the case of Blender. Instead of getting them to monetize they've just compelled Blender to move platforms.
Blender serves as an optimal test case for other large non-profits with online video content that Google may push off YouTube (would love to see PyCon move their archives off as well).
Discovery and subscriptions will need to be solved, but that’s not insurmountable (ie RSS). CDNs can be plug and play in front of nginx (if P2P torrent isn't your cup of tea), backend storage can be whatever is cheapest.
Discovery and subscriptions will need to be solved, but that’s not insurmountable (ie RSS). CDNs can be plug and play in front of nginx (if P2P torrent isn't your cup of tea), backend storage can be whatever is cheapest.
If only things were so simple.
This reminds me how not too long ago, how everyone was trying to make a clone of HN and Reddit within 24 hours in x programming language.
It's one thing make a service for few 100 users, it's a different beast to serve millions of users. In case of Online Videos, it is not only extremely difficult, it still remains very expensive. There is literally a handful of companies who can financially and technically pull it off at youtube-scale. After more than 10 years, youtube either makes very little profit or still not profitable.
It's one thing make a service for few 100 users, it's a different beast to serve millions of users. In case of Online Videos, it is not only extremely difficult, it still remains very expensive. There is literally a handful of companies who can financially and technically pull it off at youtube-scale. After more than 10 years, youtube either makes very little profit or still not profitable.
I don't disagree. Consider that perhaps you can't serve videos online and expect it to be entirely free. Can you run your compute for free? No. Can you host your database for free? No. Why would serving videos be any different? (Let's ignore limited free tiers for this argument).
The more popular the content, the cheaper per unit it'll be to serve (based on bandwidth/transit costs and how they scale, and that you most likely can serve it out of RAM with Varnish, a very inexpensive CDN, or peer to peer), but there will still be a cost, and either the producer or the consumers of that content will need to pay for it.
The more popular the content, the cheaper per unit it'll be to serve (based on bandwidth/transit costs and how they scale, and that you most likely can serve it out of RAM with Varnish, a very inexpensive CDN, or peer to peer), but there will still be a cost, and either the producer or the consumers of that content will need to pay for it.
Pure p2p networks scale by O(log n). This means if the popularity of your video scales with n then your infrastructure just scales with log(n). The idea is that leechers become seeders. So with every new layer of distribution the coverage increases exponentially.
Pure p2p networks can’t ensure a base level of quality service; you’ll always need your own infra to fall back on (which is as simple as a few dedicated servers or a CDN), but I agree p2p peers can offload some costs.
> There is literally a handful of companies who can financially and technically pull it off at youtube-scale.
Only a few companies that can do it centrally. Peer to Peer technology was doing it before youtube existed.
Only a few companies that can do it centrally. Peer to Peer technology was doing it before youtube existed.
Youtube is anything but centralized, they literally pioneered distributed video content with their GGC nodes, with at least 10s of thousands of nodes all over the world. They may not be the first, but almost definitely the largest.
I don't understand why you are mentioning peer to peer technology? What does that have to do with anything? Youtube is not a cute side project where your viewing experience depending on how many peers your video has. Peertube depends on webtorrent, you literally have to host and seed every single video on your platform and duplicate it multiple times by others. Good luck doing it over petabyte scale. Google does something similar, but popular videos are hosted at users-end point on GGC nodes, distributed over 10,000s of servers all over the world.
I don't understand why you are mentioning peer to peer technology? What does that have to do with anything? Youtube is not a cute side project where your viewing experience depending on how many peers your video has. Peertube depends on webtorrent, you literally have to host and seed every single video on your platform and duplicate it multiple times by others. Good luck doing it over petabyte scale. Google does something similar, but popular videos are hosted at users-end point on GGC nodes, distributed over 10,000s of servers all over the world.
> I don't understand why you are mentioning peer to peer technology? What does that have to do with anything?
The super-seeding / swarming approach developed for the BitTorrent protocol is quite interesting. One original seeder just needs to upload to a few leechers. Then this leechers become seeders themselfs and start to upload to a next layer of leechers and so on. This approach scales exponentially meaning you can cover the whole internet in just a few steps. Further more you can start uploading yourself even before you have completed receiving the file.
E.g. if every node just has 10 uploading connections then you just need 8 steps to cover 100 million = 10^8 peers. Remember the traffic on the original seeder (and every other node) is just 10 uploading connections.
The super-seeding / swarming approach developed for the BitTorrent protocol is quite interesting. One original seeder just needs to upload to a few leechers. Then this leechers become seeders themselfs and start to upload to a next layer of leechers and so on. This approach scales exponentially meaning you can cover the whole internet in just a few steps. Further more you can start uploading yourself even before you have completed receiving the file.
E.g. if every node just has 10 uploading connections then you just need 8 steps to cover 100 million = 10^8 peers. Remember the traffic on the original seeder (and every other node) is just 10 uploading connections.
That's great if your upload speed is unmetered and you're watching popular content.
I can give you a list of torrents that are dead and never coming back. Other than takedowns, there's some very old YouTube videos still around.
I can give you a list of torrents that are dead and never coming back. Other than takedowns, there's some very old YouTube videos still around.
I really want a competitor to YouTube. But when it works, the experience as a user is Really Good (tm).
1. YouTube Red so I don't have to see ads
2. Queuing and casting from my phone to my TV.
3. Fast loading and buffer-free streaming (as long as your bandwidth is good enough). Note I'm in Australia - Mixer and Twitch often aren't smooth for me even though I'm on 100 megabit fibre. Sydney or Melbourne PoPs will beat Hong Kong and Singapore every time.
I watch Pycon and LCA videos on YouTube because it's easier than going anywhere else.
1. YouTube Red so I don't have to see ads
2. Queuing and casting from my phone to my TV.
3. Fast loading and buffer-free streaming (as long as your bandwidth is good enough). Note I'm in Australia - Mixer and Twitch often aren't smooth for me even though I'm on 100 megabit fibre. Sydney or Melbourne PoPs will beat Hong Kong and Singapore every time.
I watch Pycon and LCA videos on YouTube because it's easier than going anywhere else.
What will stop Google to buy the next big video platform, US and EU did not stop them buy YT or FB to buy Whats App, if a competitor would show up the only way it could survive would be to be bought by MS,FB or other large company, this could lead to bad products or bad customer/user relations since this big companies are not known for their good customer support or caring for the users experience.
Ideally it should be based on some open protocol like IPFS or Dat. I would be more than willing to become part of swarm with my % of colo transfer.
Other than unlikely damage to the total user critical mass effect, what does YouTube potentially lose from kicking blender out?
The blender foundation is more likely than other groups to make something different work. Once something else works, it can start to get traction.
This is unlike other content creators, who migh not have the technical skills to try a new platform, or might rely on youtube to get views.
This is unlike other content creators, who migh not have the technical skills to try a new platform, or might rely on youtube to get views.
Nothing. They gain by use of a chilling effect: most of the seemingly negative actions and expectations they're known for, tend to rebound in favor of their core business.
It's all meant to be Logan and Jake Paul and PewDiePie and whatever will drive low-quality mass views so long as the viewer quality isn't so low that they're losing advertisers. At a scale like this, it's just pure statistics.
This is not damage. This is benefit, in terms of getting other content creators in line. The message is clear.
It's all meant to be Logan and Jake Paul and PewDiePie and whatever will drive low-quality mass views so long as the viewer quality isn't so low that they're losing advertisers. At a scale like this, it's just pure statistics.
This is not damage. This is benefit, in terms of getting other content creators in line. The message is clear.
While there are certainly benefits, I can't agree that YouTube loses nothing here. PeerTube is a potential competitor in an ecosystem that's currently functionally monopolistic, and even in a vacuum, having a nontrivial community move to that platform will immediately increase awareness and provide legitimacy.
Perhaps more importantly, the FOSS and tech communities are not a vacuum. Google and YouTube in particular have been getting increasing amounts of negative press recently, and this strongarming of Blender further drives home how far they have gone from the era of "Don't be evil." Additionally, the precedent of changing platforms rather than giving in to Google's pressure has now been set; While there will be no mass exodus, it is easier for entities to follow in Blender's footsteps than it would have been to set the lead, and we may hope that this move turns out well in order to further encourage others with similar inclinations.
Perhaps more importantly, the FOSS and tech communities are not a vacuum. Google and YouTube in particular have been getting increasing amounts of negative press recently, and this strongarming of Blender further drives home how far they have gone from the era of "Don't be evil." Additionally, the precedent of changing platforms rather than giving in to Google's pressure has now been set; While there will be no mass exodus, it is easier for entities to follow in Blender's footsteps than it would have been to set the lead, and we may hope that this move turns out well in order to further encourage others with similar inclinations.
Funnily enough, PewDiePie is no longer on YouTube's good-side, and virtually all of his newly uploaded videos get demonetized by YouTube. He's no longer "advertiser-friendly"
Why am I hearing this about almost everyone I watch? Isn't that a lose-lose-lose for creators, YouTube and advertisers?
No. It's much like the music business: they need new PewDiePies, though it's cumbersome to create them. Once you're PewDiePie for a while, you have more resources and access to lawyers and managers, and you come around looking for a better deal.
From YouTube's point of view, that's bad, so they need a replacement. It's quantity of views they need, they don't actually have a stake in the success of any one creator.
From YouTube's point of view, that's bad, so they need a replacement. It's quantity of views they need, they don't actually have a stake in the success of any one creator.
Is it possibly because you're a nerd, and the internet is no longer for nerds? It's now a platform for mass consumerism, and what interests the masses, and is thus good for advertisers probably shares little overlap with your interests?
It is likely that PewDiePie has a negative enough image that YouTube believes that associating a given brand with his content will not generate ROI for the advertisers. By demonetizing these videos 1) the advertisers win because their ads are shown more frequently in "profitable" spots, 2) YouTube wins because they build trust with their advertisers, and 3) YouTube wins again because they don't have to pay out to the content creator for valueless ad spots.
PewDiePie viewers aren't profitable to advertisers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PewDiePie#Controversial_videos...
I remember the headlines, but had to go to wikipedia to see why they abandoned ship.
I remember the headlines, but had to go to wikipedia to see why they abandoned ship.
He never really was, just people are paying attention now.
YouTube has little to no competition right now. By kicking blender out, they're forcing blender to promote an alternative to YouTube.
That is potentially the real story here, IMO. Ton has a track record of doing amazing things with impossibly small amounts of money. Given that his interests are in (video) content production, I'm not sure YouTube really thought through how this could play out...
Actually the timing (near EU upload filter laws) seems to indicate they didn't dare do this before, and fully realized this danger.
Not sure what the EU filter laws have to do with anything here?
They lose high quality content and have indirectly caused the promotion of a competitor. Also exposes their inability to answer basic questions, giving rise to questions from creators about their value and longevity on the Youtube platform.
It seems like Google is pretty conscious of their own PR, presumably actions like this alert Youtube employees that everything they do isn't in the best interest of humanity.
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
I doubt most of them care. Even if some engineers care, I really doubt that the product team does in a circumstance like this.
I doubt most of them care. Even if some engineers care, I really doubt that the product team does in a circumstance like this.
Google employees work for the worlds largest spyware company. They aren't worried about being ethical.
I agree with the first sentence but not the second.
I think a lot of employees are just not taking a step back to look at the sum of the parts they are helping to build, or maybe they have optimism/trust in their leaders to not fuck everyone over, and others might just draw their line further down the sand (e.g. no Pentagon contracts).
I imagine a brave few are also working to change it for the better from within. I'd definitely choose to work at Apple instead though, Google seems fundamentally creepy these days.
I think a lot of employees are just not taking a step back to look at the sum of the parts they are helping to build, or maybe they have optimism/trust in their leaders to not fuck everyone over, and others might just draw their line further down the sand (e.g. no Pentagon contracts).
I imagine a brave few are also working to change it for the better from within. I'd definitely choose to work at Apple instead though, Google seems fundamentally creepy these days.
That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with. Maybe avoid sweeping generalities.
Visibility for a viable alternative?
You made a video about YouTube criticism and host it on YouTube? Either that's being optimistic about them, or the dominance is so large that it outweighs everything else...
...wouldn't that be a logical place to post your YouTube criticism? Do you think Martin Luther weakened his message by nailing his criticism of the church to the door of a church? Do you think picket lines are misguided for surrounding their targets when they could picket unrelated areas farther away?
It has become a pretty common complaint lately that people should only have their protests in places where the only people that will see them are the people that already agree with them.
Yeah it's almost like a lot of people really just want everyone to shutup and accept how things are.
Does this still have any relation to my post earlier in the tread, or is this some different topic you're talking about? Because it sounds as if you're saying that I'm arguing everyone should stop criticising YouTube.
Nailing your complaints about X to the door of X, does not support X. Uploading it to YouTube makes the network effect bigger because anyone who wants to hear what you want to say will have to go to the site. It works more like vouchers, where you get a discount (technically worse for the store because they get less money) but because you'll have to go to the store to redeem it, and you'll probably buy more, it's worth it.
Thank you, very informative.
Here's an idea: if you want to drive home the point that you don't do it for the ad money, and if you want to force yourself not to depend on that money, you could give it all to FOSS foundations.
You could publish your YouTube check every month, as small as it may be, on your blog or website, alongside an equivalent donation to, say, the FSF, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Archive.org, Blender, EFF, or whatever foundation you like.
If you publicize it on YouTube and here, you may even start a movement of sorts.
Here's an idea: if you want to drive home the point that you don't do it for the ad money, and if you want to force yourself not to depend on that money, you could give it all to FOSS foundations.
You could publish your YouTube check every month, as small as it may be, on your blog or website, alongside an equivalent donation to, say, the FSF, Mozilla, Wikimedia, Archive.org, Blender, EFF, or whatever foundation you like.
If you publicize it on YouTube and here, you may even start a movement of sorts.
> So this seems to have happened because Youtube wants The Blender Foundation to agree to have their videos monetized.
But that doesn't seem to make sense. There are lots of popular channels that don't have advertising and Blender's videos are popular but not that popular.
Their blogpost about it is here: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
I haven't looked at the contract they posted, but they seem to have the same interpretation as you. Maybe it's just an updated contract that includes new rules if you monetize?
(that aside, the communication chain from google posted there is just atrocious. I wouldn't sign a 6 page contract based on those robo-emails either)
But that doesn't seem to make sense. There are lots of popular channels that don't have advertising and Blender's videos are popular but not that popular.
Their blogpost about it is here: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
I haven't looked at the contract they posted, but they seem to have the same interpretation as you. Maybe it's just an updated contract that includes new rules if you monetize?
(that aside, the communication chain from google posted there is just atrocious. I wouldn't sign a 6 page contract based on those robo-emails either)
It seems bizarre, but there is a quote from Google's support literally saying:
I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you
need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your
video will be available in the USA.
> There are lots of popular channels that don't have advertising and Blender's videos are popular but not that popular.
It makes sense if it's staged rollout. I'm assuming all unmonetized good actors (ie not stealing other people's content) will see this ultimatum eventually.
It makes sense if it's staged rollout. I'm assuming all unmonetized good actors (ie not stealing other people's content) will see this ultimatum eventually.
This appears to be the source for the above claim:
https://twitter.com/tonroosendaal/status/1009010581549060097
> Google sent a contract to Blender Foundation in which we have to accept monetizing our Youtube channel content.
and link to contract:
http://download.blender.org/institute/Contract%20between%20G...
The contract looks like a regular monetization contract, so the cause-effect relationship between blocking and monetization is not made clear.
Why would Google single out Blender for this? Unless they had copyright concerns and needed to revshare with copyright holders, or they want to go "freemium" and make all high-view/quality videos monetized.
https://twitter.com/tonroosendaal/status/1009010581549060097
> Google sent a contract to Blender Foundation in which we have to accept monetizing our Youtube channel content.
and link to contract:
http://download.blender.org/institute/Contract%20between%20G...
The contract looks like a regular monetization contract, so the cause-effect relationship between blocking and monetization is not made clear.
Why would Google single out Blender for this? Unless they had copyright concerns and needed to revshare with copyright holders, or they want to go "freemium" and make all high-view/quality videos monetized.
It's pretty irritating. I'm a Red subscriber, so whatever bullshit Google has going on with their advertising monetization policy doesn't -- or, rather, shouldn't -- affect me. Yet the MIT OCW videos are blocked from my account the same as they are for everyone else.
Get your act together, Google. This is just stupid.
Get your act together, Google. This is just stupid.
In other news, did anyone get a 'go ad free' pop-up on YouTube today, with 3 months free?
Seems there are some changes going on.
Seems there are some changes going on.
> So this seems to have happened because YouTube wants The Blender Foundation to agree to have their videos monetized.
"Don't be evil."
"Don't be evil."
Isn’t it convenient they don’t define any morality or worldview?
It's hard to define, but you can know it when you see it.
So Google is clearly violating their motto?
The comments here are more interesting than the article itself. Looks like the real issue was a UX snafu on YouTube's part that support had trouble resolving for too long. Let's hope YouTube does better in the future.
However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples:
- ads are required for big channels (false)
- demonetization of content creators (unrelated)
- anti-trust based on search or social networking (unrelated)
- SketchUp is blocking YouTube videos (false)
We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format if everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion.
However, if you read the comments here, they paint a sinister portrait of YouTube that has nothing to do with Blender's issue. Some examples:
- ads are required for big channels (false)
- demonetization of content creators (unrelated)
- anti-trust based on search or social networking (unrelated)
- SketchUp is blocking YouTube videos (false)
We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format if everyone is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet peeves to every discussion.
This is because this issue with Blender is just a cherry on top of a multitude of issues with YouTube that have crop up for the past few years. So the thread is about the impact of YouTube algorithms.
I have myself found it pretty hard to publish videos without ads on YouTube, even though I have a minuscule channel.
Their Content ID system is triggered for almost any background music I throw at it, including Royalty Free or CC-BY music. The insidious part is that the videos are not taken down, they just put ads on top of it while you try to refute the claim, even if you tick the "I do not want ads to appear" box. The problem in this instance is anyone can upload a piece of audio and claim copyright on it, and video are then automatically flagged.
There is an interesting support thread about paid-for, Royalty-free classical music, that shows how outrageous the system is: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPy...
I have myself found it pretty hard to publish videos without ads on YouTube, even though I have a minuscule channel.
Their Content ID system is triggered for almost any background music I throw at it, including Royalty Free or CC-BY music. The insidious part is that the videos are not taken down, they just put ads on top of it while you try to refute the claim, even if you tick the "I do not want ads to appear" box. The problem in this instance is anyone can upload a piece of audio and claim copyright on it, and video are then automatically flagged.
There is an interesting support thread about paid-for, Royalty-free classical music, that shows how outrageous the system is: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/iMlPy...
ads are required for big channels (false) [...] everyone
is just going to bring in their unrelated and false pet
peeves to every discussion.
I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you
need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your
video will be available in the USA.
I feel your claim that this is a pet peeve that has nothing to do with Blender's issue is unfair.
[1] https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
That quote was incorrect. See their later updates. I agree support was misinformed, this is a real issue with YouTube.
I don't see an update saying the quote is incorrect, or that the problem has been resolved - the only update I see on the article says their videos "have been blocked worldwide without explanation"
Are you looking at a different article to me?
Are you looking at a different article to me?
"Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
"Woopsie, we totally just accidentally blocked all your videos and then demanded payment via monetization. Total goof after you posted our demand to the internet. Yup, just the fault of that support person whose name you don't remember."
> As we understand it now it’s ... and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel.
You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
You still seem to be wrong. Or am I missing something else?
The Blender videos are back up without monetization, therefore the statement "ads are required for big channels" is demonstrably false.
The statement "ads are required for big channels - well, not this one, but..." is false.
This is a more true statement: "ads are required for big channels. We've unfortunately trained our support staff to lie to blender - where we supposedly have an exemption. But you don't qualify, so ads are required for your channel, if big enough."
This is a more true statement: "ads are required for big channels. We've unfortunately trained our support staff to lie to blender - where we supposedly have an exemption. But you don't qualify, so ads are required for your channel, if big enough."
"non-standard" != "need to enable ads"
Only after months of Kafkaesque confusion and repeated inquiries were they able to obtain a deviation from what youtube is calling their standard.
Whether you want to call that an iron-clad rule or not, the face-value version of the article, and the general gist of the reactions from the comment section seem to be much closer to the truth than your portrayal of it as an "unrelated and false pet peeve."
Whether you want to call that an iron-clad rule or not, the face-value version of the article, and the general gist of the reactions from the comment section seem to be much closer to the truth than your portrayal of it as an "unrelated and false pet peeve."
> what youtube is calling their standard
Those seem to be the Blender team's words, not YouTube's.
Those seem to be the Blender team's words, not YouTube's.
>I’ve received an update from our experts stating that you need to enable ads for your video. Once you enable, your video will be available in the USA.
This is an actual quotation from Youtube support, unless you're suggesting that the Blender Foundation is lying. If what an employee of Youtube says about Youtube while representing Youtube can't be taken as evidence of Youtube policy, what can?
This is an actual quotation from Youtube support, unless you're suggesting that the Blender Foundation is lying. If what an employee of Youtube says about Youtube while representing Youtube can't be taken as evidence of Youtube policy, what can?
I read that to mean that support didn't know how to deal with the situation because it's rare, not that Youtube doesn't allow that situation.
People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted. And to see channel after channel with interesting and unique content get disappeared due to misalignment with establishment priorities.
The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case.
Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here.
That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
The cases which may not apply here, like requiring ads, are real issues that don't get the visibility that the victims deserve. So when a high visibility incident like this happens, people highlight the plight of those past (and current) victims even if not wholly applicable to this case.
Maybe you're right that using this platform to highlight the host of well-documented problems with the platform is "off-topic", but it's understandable and logical when you understand the bigger picture and community here.
That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
This is a very common occurrence on HN where some minor incident involving Amazon/Elon Musk/Google/feminism or GDPR becomes an opportunity for all manner of commentators to gather and exult together in your standard Two Minutes Hate [1]. All of the issues that get brought up during this Hate either (a) have no basis in reality or (b) wholly irrelevant. And so we get another thread full of people complaining and hating about things which literally don't exist. (What's particularly humorous are all the elaborate conspiracy theories in this thread. At least nobody mentioned the Jews... yet.)
> People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted.
Of course this is just more of the same. Calling YouTube -- a service that spends tens of millions of dollars a year spreading information, entertainment, and news around the world for free -- "co-opted" is beyond stupid. But it's just this sort of black-and-white, "good vs evil" thinking which rules.
> That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
And there's the conspiracy. Baseless speculation without evidence, scare quotes, and a total failure to admit error when proven wrong.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done. There's a certain logic at work here that poisons thread after thread. I say logic and not ideology because it's really a style of thinking. It's a kind of general extremism-cum-conspiracy that has been well and truly normalized. The people that will rush in to rage about the latest news from Tesla or Google don't even understand how insane they sound.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
> People might be upset because it's emotionally painful to watch a property that was once a middle finger to "the man" become wholly co-opted.
Of course this is just more of the same. Calling YouTube -- a service that spends tens of millions of dollars a year spreading information, entertainment, and news around the world for free -- "co-opted" is beyond stupid. But it's just this sort of black-and-white, "good vs evil" thinking which rules.
> That and the number of coincidental "mistakes" in this story requires serious suspension of disbelief. One wonders whether any of those mistakes would have been caught had the channel been lower profile.
And there's the conspiracy. Baseless speculation without evidence, scare quotes, and a total failure to admit error when proven wrong.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can be done. There's a certain logic at work here that poisons thread after thread. I say logic and not ideology because it's really a style of thinking. It's a kind of general extremism-cum-conspiracy that has been well and truly normalized. The people that will rush in to rage about the latest news from Tesla or Google don't even understand how insane they sound.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate
Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs? No one is entitled to make money off of YouTube channels, even if you made a lot of money last week.
YouTube can change the rules whenever they want. If you don't like how they change it, support a different service instead. Continuing to patronize it as they implement changes you disagree with, and then kvetching online won't help.
GP's point that discussions frequently get derailed is spot on. Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
YouTube can change the rules whenever they want. If you don't like how they change it, support a different service instead. Continuing to patronize it as they implement changes you disagree with, and then kvetching online won't help.
GP's point that discussions frequently get derailed is spot on. Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
> Why are people upset when a service that is run by a for-profit entity decides to change how it runs?
I don't know, maybe because it leads to destruction of valuable content, regardless of whether it is legally ok.
The notion that just because something is legal, it can't be upsetting is absurd. What about if the government decided to use eminent domain to acquire your land? It would be legal, but probably still upsetting.
I don't know, maybe because it leads to destruction of valuable content, regardless of whether it is legally ok.
The notion that just because something is legal, it can't be upsetting is absurd. What about if the government decided to use eminent domain to acquire your land? It would be legal, but probably still upsetting.
Always expect for-profit organizations will take the most profitable path at your expense.
Your choice is to try to avoid having anything that will get in their way or set up your life to not rely on their services.
Recently Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and others are showing the dangers of for-profit data monopolies and are pushing many people to open federated alternatives like PeerTube, Mastodon, Riot.im etc. This is a much healthier and censorship resistant direction for the internet to take, IMO.
Keep right on being negligent and profit-seeking YouTube. The internet will be better off in the long term.
Your choice is to try to avoid having anything that will get in their way or set up your life to not rely on their services.
Recently Youtube, Twitter, Facebook and others are showing the dangers of for-profit data monopolies and are pushing many people to open federated alternatives like PeerTube, Mastodon, Riot.im etc. This is a much healthier and censorship resistant direction for the internet to take, IMO.
Keep right on being negligent and profit-seeking YouTube. The internet will be better off in the long term.
Your choice is to try to avoid having anything that will get in their way or set up your life to not rely on their services.
I'm not sure Anabaptism is really as clean a solution as you propose.
I'm not sure Anabaptism is really as clean a solution as you propose.
I'm not saying don't care because it's legal. I'm saying it's inevitable. How new are you all to living in a capitalist society? Stuff doesn't exist for your enjoyment, it exists for someone else's profit.
Which, again, does not mean you can't be upset about it.
Just because someone happens to live in a certain type of society doesn't mean they have to agree with all the society does, in fact it is unhealthy if they do.
There are many things in life which are "inevitable", as you say, like war, death, you/friend of yours getting fired, but some of these things will probably make you upset nonetheless.
There are many things in life which are "inevitable", as you say, like war, death, you/friend of yours getting fired, but some of these things will probably make you upset nonetheless.
> Why even read the comments if you're just going to get a bunch of unrelated opinions on the topic.
Some of us may not appreciate this "expectation" of absolute topicality; comments are supposed to be a free-for-all. That's why we call them comments.
Some of us may not appreciate this "expectation" of absolute topicality; comments are supposed to be a free-for-all. That's why we call them comments.
Blender were asked to sign a monetization agreement.
https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c...
https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c...
"Update 2: Blender’s Ton Roosendaal notes that YouTube wants the organization to sign a monetization agreement."TFA has updates after this and this update turned out to be misinterpretation.
I am not seeing this update you are referring to, it looks like it stops after Update 2.
Not your article, the original article:
"Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
"Last night the Youtube Support team contacted Francesco Siddi by phone. As we understand it now it’s a mix of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desk staff and our non-standard decision to not monetize a popular Youtube channel."
I see it now (sorry the comment was confusing to me).
To your original comment, Yes, in this case it was a "UX snafu". In the future, how many of those will actually be fixed? Will YouTube look at other instances for smaller ones where there won't be a social media backlash? Or will it be business as usual until YouTube gets enough bas PR again to manually fix it again and still nothing gets fixed?
The reason that the comments in Hacker News are what they are is because of much deeper issues between YouTube and content creators. YouTube and Google have had many customer support issues in the past, it seems that YouTube has burned a lot of good will with a lot of content creators, and the only way to truly get to them is via "social media shaming".
To your original comment, Yes, in this case it was a "UX snafu". In the future, how many of those will actually be fixed? Will YouTube look at other instances for smaller ones where there won't be a social media backlash? Or will it be business as usual until YouTube gets enough bas PR again to manually fix it again and still nothing gets fixed?
The reason that the comments in Hacker News are what they are is because of much deeper issues between YouTube and content creators. YouTube and Google have had many customer support issues in the past, it seems that YouTube has burned a lot of good will with a lot of content creators, and the only way to truly get to them is via "social media shaming".
[deleted]
They still have the option of not enabling ads (you have to chose whether ads are enabled): https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72857?hl=en
I do wish people thought a bit more criticaly. Removing the ability to host videos ad free would be a gigantic change for YouTube, so people should be more skeptical.
I do wish people thought a bit more criticaly. Removing the ability to host videos ad free would be a gigantic change for YouTube, so people should be more skeptical.
@ariwilson you work at google. since we're on the topic of truth and the actions of your corporate sponsor.
but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
"We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."
but again i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
"We might as well change Hacker News from an article based format to a [corporate sponsor] based format if everyone is just going to . . . [support their company in] every discussion."
It's pretty common to discuss topics other than those specifically mentioned in a linked item on Hacker News. What do you mean by "change Hacker News from an article based format to a topic based format"? What actual change would be necessary? People have, pretty much forever, commented on lots of things of varying degrees of relatedness on everything submitted to HN.
Well, (I believe) the article that you read is not the article that was posted. The HN post is about the PeerTube test (and previous posts), at a time where the facts about this case was not available to anyone.
I agree @ariwilson, I don't know what needs to be done about this lack of critical thinking. Most discussions here and across the 'net' are filled with unintelligible chatter, so it's no wonder that people use this conversation to spread every misconception they've ever heard about YouTube.
The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe.
Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How?
My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related.
I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;)
It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?
The post is about an YouTube UX issue that caused Blender to choose another video platform, that YT didn't disallow the content as some people believe.
Wouldn't it help if Discussion boards had a logician magician who moderates posts? Someone who's sole purpose is to point out logical fallacies- like whether a post adds value to the conversation. Is it objective or opinionated? Is the post related to the discussion? If not, does the post expand upon the discussion in a way that's relevant or did the writer lack critical thinking? How?
My post is slightly off-topic considering the original, however, I'm relating to user @ariwilson about this discussion's lack of critical thinking and deductive reasoning, which is related.
I'm adding to the discussion similar to ariwilson but not adding new examples since ariwilson covered that. I'm not just complaining that people are "Stoopid and shouldn't be allowed to post of they're not helping everyone so we should ban them"! hehe- because that would be my ignorant opinion based on personal belief void of fact checking or research. Plus, banning people, places or things is never a good idea! Banning speech and freedom of thought are definitely terrible ideas! ;)
It's late a here and I'm rambling, sorry. But, you get the idea...a mod mage with a symbol map depicting the fallacys within each post in an easy-to-understand way. Wouldn't it be nice?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Demonetization of content creators and anti-trust are related if your intention is to protest the platform.
I can't believe this has been going on for three days. YouTube seems like it is actively sabotaging its independent content creator's channels. But in this case it's not just some random kid living with their parent's. MIT and Blender are both respectable orgs.
They've been pissing off their content creators for quiet a while now w/ completely arbitrary, machine-driven demonitization. Many of these creators are far beyond the "kid in a basement" category; they're celebs, have employees, and make $$$.
It's crazy and really sad how YouTube bloomed into this awesome, independent alternative to all the crap coming out of hollywood and cable TV, but now they've decided to kneecap the independents, promote the shit out of establishment stuff, and push actual, real-live cable really hard.
It feels like a hostile takeover.
It's crazy and really sad how YouTube bloomed into this awesome, independent alternative to all the crap coming out of hollywood and cable TV, but now they've decided to kneecap the independents, promote the shit out of establishment stuff, and push actual, real-live cable really hard.
It feels like a hostile takeover.
A whole of that can be traced back to leadership change at YT. Since S.W. took over, the culture at YT has changed profoundly, and most of the blunders in the last few years (this is just one in a long series) can be traced back to the culture change she fostered.
insider knowledge or external observations? would be curious to hear more. this could be an interesting article, even.
I mean, that only happened because advertisers learned that the "independent" creators were all assholes. Like this started after advertisers started pulling out when PewDiePie didn't just apologize and admit he was wrong with the Nazi stunts. He threw a fit and advertisers realized that YouTube isn't really as good as they thought it was.
I honestly don't believe this. I think YouTube used this as an excuse to crack down on channels they didn't like, for whatever reason. (And also a lot of other channels, because the flagging is poorly done. I know some people who run a very popular skateboarding instruction channel, and they've had huge problems with demonitization. The content is utterly inoffensive.)
I think if all you were concerned about is advertisers, you'd just let them pick that as a criteria: "Would you like to advertise on channels flagged by our system as potentially offensive?"
Some would, some wouldn't. Problem solved, you don't piss off creators, you make more money.
(Maybe the counter-argument to that is advertisers wouldn't want to appear on any YouTube channel because some other YouTube channel had offensive content, as though all of YouTube were a tainted brand, but that is frankly laughable.)
I think if all you were concerned about is advertisers, you'd just let them pick that as a criteria: "Would you like to advertise on channels flagged by our system as potentially offensive?"
Some would, some wouldn't. Problem solved, you don't piss off creators, you make more money.
(Maybe the counter-argument to that is advertisers wouldn't want to appear on any YouTube channel because some other YouTube channel had offensive content, as though all of YouTube were a tainted brand, but that is frankly laughable.)
+ 1 flagging is extremely poorly done.
Have a friend with gaming channel and he showed me how it is easy to get video demonetised, just add "fetish", "cannibal", any religious phrase... The fun and insanely frustrating part is that you can reupload same video with same description, tags and titles second(or maybe more) times and it will be monetised if algorithm will think you are lucky... wtf. And you can't appeal if your video has less than 1k views for the last week. I know it's not much, but appeal process takes 1 week and usually most videos get majority of their views in that 1-st week, so it is easier to just reupload...
It's fine if new videos get flagged, you can reupload them, but youtube bots flag old videos and there is no notification whatsoever. Even their own "Video manager board" not showing them as demonitised, because they still get money from youtube red and considered as claimed, you have to enter "edit video" to see the notification. You just have to manually search them... And for gaming channels with 1-2k videos it's a pain.
It's fine if new videos get flagged, you can reupload them, but youtube bots flag old videos and there is no notification whatsoever. Even their own "Video manager board" not showing them as demonitised, because they still get money from youtube red and considered as claimed, you have to enter "edit video" to see the notification. You just have to manually search them... And for gaming channels with 1-2k videos it's a pain.
Why would YouTube willingly run fewer ads? They were hardly profitable as it was, it doesn't make sense for them to "crack down" on channels all of a sudden by continuing to host them, but not running ads on them.
Not to mention part of the problem was YouTube not enforcing their content guidelines to begin with. Hate speech has always been against their content guidelines, they just never actually enforced it.
Not to mention part of the problem was YouTube not enforcing their content guidelines to begin with. Hate speech has always been against their content guidelines, they just never actually enforced it.
I'm pretty annoyed, I was planning on using a bunch of MITOCW video series to level up some on some computer science and information theory this summer and I hadn't even gotten through the first lecture of the first series on my list (6.001 with Sussman from 1986, classic and awesome) when this stopped me in my tracks.
I've been waiting patiently hoping it comes back, but at this point I feel like I'm going to have to use archive.org or download directly from them.
I was slowly warming up to the idea of paying for Red for commercial-less music and maybe checking out some other paid content, but this has been a bucket of cold water on that notion.
I've been waiting patiently hoping it comes back, but at this point I feel like I'm going to have to use archive.org or download directly from them.
I was slowly warming up to the idea of paying for Red for commercial-less music and maybe checking out some other paid content, but this has been a bucket of cold water on that notion.
The 1986 6.001 videos are available here: https://archive.org/details/MIT_Structure_of_Computer_Progra...
You can download videos from MIT OCW website here : https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
You can not stream videos from the website though as streaming links are from youtube.
You can not stream videos from the website though as streaming links are from youtube.
I'm in a similar spot - you can also stream the MP4s from archive.org as a workaround (they're usually linked on the lecture's OCW page.)
I know this has been posted before but youtube-dl is a godsend when it comes to archiving content. Considering how quickly youtube is taking down educational channels, it's prudent to create a backup just in case.
which other educational channels have youtube shut down?
Actually it’s much worse when they hit the random kid living with parents who might be relying on it and who won’t get through to support like orgs like MIT and Blender can.
Side note: PeerTube is part of the same federated network as Mastodon. You can follow Blender's PeerTube account from Mastodon by entering @[email protected] into the search bar and clicking follow on the result!
Yes and PeerTube https://joinpeertube.org/en/ is fundrising to be improved : https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
20 000 € goal: PeerTube v1, clean and simple
With your help, we can get PeerTube to its first stable release, its v1, planned for October, 2018. You will finance the development of:
There are important features we dream of including into the v1. We hope you will contribute so far as to helping us finance:
PeerTube isn't a quick and easy fix to data-centralization through video platforms. It's an alternative that will grow and emancipate internet users on the long run. At this point, your contributions will help us:
20 000 € goal: PeerTube v1, clean and simple
With your help, we can get PeerTube to its first stable release, its v1, planned for October, 2018. You will finance the development of:
○ Interface localization, to support multiple languages;
○ Video subtitles, to facilitate video accessibility for diverse audiences;
○ RSS feeds, to follow instances, users and channels through RSS protocol;
○ Video import from URL (YouTube, Vimeo, Dailymotion, etc.) or torrent file;
○ Improved and advanced search feature;
○ Software stability (bug fixes) and scalability.
There are important features we dream of including into the v1. We hope you will contribute so far as to helping us finance:
○ Video redundancy (to share bandwidth between instances or as fallback if the original instance is down)
○ Subscriptions to users & channels throughout the federation (for users to subscribe to whatever they want regardless of their instance federation settings)
PeerTube isn't a quick and easy fix to data-centralization through video platforms. It's an alternative that will grow and emancipate internet users on the long run. At this point, your contributions will help us:
○ Finance the development of a webapp that will be available on Android and iOS app stores;
○ Contribute to the ActivityPub community. ActivityPub is the groundbreaking federation protocol that runs PeerTube's federation and also Mastodon's (a federated Twitter alternative);
○ Secure PeerTube's lead developer employment after the V1 release (oct. 2018);
○ Pave the road to V2, where our priority will be a plugin system to facilitate the development of personnalized features and displays.What makes PeerTube superior to BitChute?
Is BitChute federated? I was able to follow's Blender's videos from a Mastodon account since PeerTube runs on the same network.
It's open-source and you can host your own instance, with your own content and rules whilst federating with other instances.
Thanks, that convinced me to give
This is why I'm hyped about the fedi. This is what it'll finally take to break our dependence on a centralized web. Essentially, the email model. I wish we followed this model earlier in the web 2.0 days.
Is there a list of various "federated" version of different social networks? Would be interested in a list if there was one.
Wow that really gives me more hope.
I know ISPs have a bad rep in the states but where I live in europe we still trust some of our ISPs. So I'd like to see a world where ISPs offer mastodon and peertube instances to off load privately hosted instances.
I'd be more likely to trust someone I'm already paying monthly for internet access to keep my social media data safe, than a "free" service.
I know ISPs have a bad rep in the states but where I live in europe we still trust some of our ISPs. So I'd like to see a world where ISPs offer mastodon and peertube instances to off load privately hosted instances.
I'd be more likely to trust someone I'm already paying monthly for internet access to keep my social media data safe, than a "free" service.
I don't think it should be ISPs that should offer such services. I got bitten once back in the days when I had an AOL email address. Changing ISP then became a complete mess, and unlike changing mobile phone provider you can't port your email address to a different hosting company.
So I think whoever provides these services (Identity, email, Fediverse node) should be independent from the ISP, and allow you to use your own domain so that you can change provider one day
So I think whoever provides these services (Identity, email, Fediverse node) should be independent from the ISP, and allow you to use your own domain so that you can change provider one day
I know that is an obvious issue but the reason I even mention ISPs helping out is because video streaming requires a lot of bandwidth.
Micro blogging is something society can easily take over from big corporations because it's basically like e-mail, but even more optimized compared to those old days.
But video uploading and streaming is where bandwidth becomes a major factor, and bandwidth=money.
Micro blogging is something society can easily take over from big corporations because it's basically like e-mail, but even more optimized compared to those old days.
But video uploading and streaming is where bandwidth becomes a major factor, and bandwidth=money.
oh no, now I just have even more questions, what is mastodon?
A good replacement for Twitter. Where "good" means:
- Decentralised. Anyone can run their own instance, but instances are federated so everyone on any instance can see your toots (Mastodon's tweets). So if you're paranoid about privacy or hate Nazi bootboys, you can run your own instance with complete control.
- A nice progression of feeds from only people you follow; to all toots of your instance; to toots from all instances.
- Polite discourse, at least on the mastodon.social instance which I belong to. Different instances have different rules, so maybe there is one for Nazi bootboys.
- Open, so if you don't like the interface, you can make your own. The stock web interface is fine for me.
- No ads!
- Trump isn't on it.
If you enjoyed Twitter more in the past when real people tweeted about real things, Mastodon is definitely worth checking out.
- Decentralised. Anyone can run their own instance, but instances are federated so everyone on any instance can see your toots (Mastodon's tweets). So if you're paranoid about privacy or hate Nazi bootboys, you can run your own instance with complete control.
- A nice progression of feeds from only people you follow; to all toots of your instance; to toots from all instances.
- Polite discourse, at least on the mastodon.social instance which I belong to. Different instances have different rules, so maybe there is one for Nazi bootboys.
- Open, so if you don't like the interface, you can make your own. The stock web interface is fine for me.
- No ads!
- Trump isn't on it.
If you enjoyed Twitter more in the past when real people tweeted about real things, Mastodon is definitely worth checking out.
Don't worry, either your Eternal September is coming, or it will never take off.
Unfortu steely I think there's no way around that at this point, as I suspect any growth curve that actually allows a group to keep a culture will never be growing fast enough for the vastajoriry of people to put up with for long enough for it to grow sizable enough. :/
Unfortu steely I think there's no way around that at this point, as I suspect any growth curve that actually allows a group to keep a culture will never be growing fast enough for the vastajoriry of people to put up with for long enough for it to grow sizable enough. :/
Wow, I really butchered that last night while using my phone.
> Polite discourse
Everything is polite at first, until it gets big. This has been true of all social media platforms in history.
Everything is polite at first, until it gets big. This has been true of all social media platforms in history.
Very true, but the federated instances architecture means there will always be small instances. You can choose to migrate from an instance if it gets too big.
[deleted]
a killer metal band
From Google's point of view, the Blender Foundation are the bad guys. They host a very popular channel on their servers, using up a lot of bandwidth, storage, and resources, they don't pay a cent to the hosting provider, and on top of that, they actively try to prevent their content from paying up for itself. I don't see it as shocking that Google is forcing them to enable ads.
What I find surprising is that Google did not see this coming and thus A. never limited ad-free content to small channels in their ToS, and B. does not provide a paid hosting option.
What I find surprising is that Google did not see this coming and thus A. never limited ad-free content to small channels in their ToS, and B. does not provide a paid hosting option.
Or doesn't at least C) clearly explain what the policy is. You want to require ads on channels over x views, make that your policy.
But these guys have priority support, and still go around for months with youtube without getting any answers, only to then have their whole channel killed without comment.
Why do so many tech companies have these Kafkaesque exception paths?
But these guys have priority support, and still go around for months with youtube without getting any answers, only to then have their whole channel killed without comment.
Why do so many tech companies have these Kafkaesque exception paths?
I concur. YouTube need to have a clear policy, explain it, give people a notice period, then implement it.
If they want everything to be monetised in order to fund the ongoing existence and development of YouTube that's entirely their choice, but they need to be very explicit about it.
Especially when they're wiping out entire channels with misleading error messages as a consequence of maybe possibly changing something that they haven't told their support people about.
If they want everything to be monetised in order to fund the ongoing existence and development of YouTube that's entirely their choice, but they need to be very explicit about it.
Especially when they're wiping out entire channels with misleading error messages as a consequence of maybe possibly changing something that they haven't told their support people about.
> Why do so many tech companies have these Kafkaesque exception paths?
Support doesn't scale. Better that a million users have a terrible experience than one user takes up staff time getting their problem fixed.
Support doesn't scale. Better that a million users have a terrible experience than one user takes up staff time getting their problem fixed.
> Support doesn't scale.
If you cannot (or don't want to) scale support, create the policies from beginning in a way that hardly needs any support. Just like you plan your database from beginning how it is supposed to scale.
If you cannot (or don't want to) scale support, create the policies from beginning in a way that hardly needs any support. Just like you plan your database from beginning how it is supposed to scale.
I don't understand if you truly believe that or are trying to be sarcastic (poorly).
Either way it's a comment that adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
Those popular channels, is what drives customer acquisition and stickiness at YouTube. The costs associated to this are simply marketing costs, so I think it’s just greedy to charge your content providers to drive down the retention and acquisition costs.
The minute I can't just find everything on youtube though their entire model begins to go down the toilet. What's that going to cost them.
This is a totally fair point. But wouldn't it make more sense to either (a) continue to pay the hosting costs to stay known as the 'one true place' to find online videos, or (b) allow the Blender Foundation to pay to host their vidoes on YouTube if they want to stay ad-free?
Yeah, I totally agree. It's a very bad look for them to essentially disallow ad-free non-profits if they get popular enough. Given how small of a segment this is (the vast majority of massively popular channels monetize, after all), and the fact that they already have the infrastructure to support it, it should be a no-brainer for them to keep Blender on. The reputation cost is clearly worse than the actual loss in hosting costs here.
However, they're a big company, and it makes sense that they have a policy of "if your channel is big enough, you have to put ads on it to support hosting cost". Making policy exceptions in a big company like this is tricky, and it seems Blender just fell through the cracks.
However, they're a big company, and it makes sense that they have a policy of "if your channel is big enough, you have to put ads on it to support hosting cost". Making policy exceptions in a big company like this is tricky, and it seems Blender just fell through the cracks.
If this is the case, they must be transparent about this and basically be able to tell it like it is.
This isn’t true at all. Publishers have the ability to choose which of their videos have ads in them: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72857?hl=en
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/94522?hl=en
Given some of the very brand unsafe videos that show on YouTube, it is obviously in google’s best interest to not require ads for all videos.
Given some of the very brand unsafe videos that show on YouTube, it is obviously in google’s best interest to not require ads for all videos.
So YouTube created an effective monopoly through social networking, and now is abusing that position.
Not surprising but disappointing. Hopefully people leave YouTube in droves and remind them that their position is not static.
First time hearing of PeerTube, but looks good so far.
Not surprising but disappointing. Hopefully people leave YouTube in droves and remind them that their position is not static.
First time hearing of PeerTube, but looks good so far.
YouTube has a monopoly partially because social networking aspects like search, recommended, etc.
However, another reason competitors haven't cropped up is because copyright law in the US and elsewhere highly favors publishers over hosters or creators. Publishers will sue the crap out of you the moment you get big enough to make a difference. If Google hadn't dumped money into YouTube, they'd probably have gone under years ago when Viacom and others sued them for copyright infringement.
We need copyright reform.
However, another reason competitors haven't cropped up is because copyright law in the US and elsewhere highly favors publishers over hosters or creators. Publishers will sue the crap out of you the moment you get big enough to make a difference. If Google hadn't dumped money into YouTube, they'd probably have gone under years ago when Viacom and others sued them for copyright infringement.
We need copyright reform.
> now is abusing that position
Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...
Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...
Blocking your videos and holding them hostage until you agree to a new contract would be abuse, yes.
Wait, are you suggesting that it should be forced to continue to distribute your videos for free (to you) even if you don't agree to their terms of service?
I would say that if you want to run a platform for communication and expression, you shouldn't run rampant across it like a bully. There's a limit to what any company should be able to get away with in their terms of service. Push far enough, and the customers will leave with a bad taste in their mouth.
You can start running a platform for free expression, then start bullying people into adherence to a monetization policy. You're within your rights. However, that's a stupid level of bait and switch, like billing yourself as a vegan restaurant, but telling everyone they can only eat burgers.
You can start running a platform for free expression, then start bullying people into adherence to a monetization policy. You're within your rights. However, that's a stupid level of bait and switch, like billing yourself as a vegan restaurant, but telling everyone they can only eat burgers.
No, I'm suggesting that you can't change a contract (ToS) after it's been accepted without consideration.
Blender already had an account and videos hosted on Youtube. Blender did not change their videos. YouTube changed their rules - and is holding Blender's videos hostage until they accept NEW terms.
These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
Blender already had an account and videos hosted on Youtube. Blender did not change their videos. YouTube changed their rules - and is holding Blender's videos hostage until they accept NEW terms.
These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
> No, I'm suggesting that you can't change a contract (ToS) after it's been accepted without consideration.
Of course you can, as long as that is specified in the contract.
> These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
And that is allowed per the contract.
Of course you can, as long as that is specified in the contract.
> These aren't terms already part of Blender's contract - which is why Youtube is literally trying to force Blender to sign a new contract and refuses to execute their original ToS.
And that is allowed per the contract.
A contract in the US can't override tort law. Material change without consideration is de facto no go.
This is pretty standard torts 101. You can say whatever you want in a contract but that doesn't mean the clause is valid. Furthermore ToS fall under sticker contracts which have a different level of scrutiny especially in regards to material changes post facto.
YouTube knows this. This is why they are trying to get Blender to sign a new contract. If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.
This is pretty standard torts 101. You can say whatever you want in a contract but that doesn't mean the clause is valid. Furthermore ToS fall under sticker contracts which have a different level of scrutiny especially in regards to material changes post facto.
YouTube knows this. This is why they are trying to get Blender to sign a new contract. If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.
There was no material consideration to begin with. If I agree to paint your house for free, and put it in writing, and then later decide not to (or decide not to unless you agree to some post-hoc rule), you have no tort against me -- there was no consideration to begin with.
But you can't agree to paint my house for free, decide you would rather be paid halfway through and then prevent me from entering my house until I pay you.
That's a bit of a clumsy analogy, but the issue here is the immediate blocking of content and then demanding of pay. If Youtube instead said "Hey, you have 90 days to remove your content or let us monetize it" that would be a bit different.
That's a bit of a clumsy analogy, but the issue here is the immediate blocking of content and then demanding of pay. If Youtube instead said "Hey, you have 90 days to remove your content or let us monetize it" that would be a bit different.
Your youtube channel is Google's property. Your content is yours. You can remove them anytime. But your YouTube channel is not your house!
As much as I’d like to buy into this interpretation, isn’t the fact that youtube is an ongoing developed and supported service that consideration?
As in, their consideration here is “we continue to, without any pricetag, host your videos for free on a website receiving ongoing updates and development, AND FURTHER allow you to continue to upload and store new content, despite either and both being complete deadweight cost for us?”
The consideration being the right to indefinitely add more to the platform and benefit from those updates
As in, their consideration here is “we continue to, without any pricetag, host your videos for free on a website receiving ongoing updates and development, AND FURTHER allow you to continue to upload and store new content, despite either and both being complete deadweight cost for us?”
The consideration being the right to indefinitely add more to the platform and benefit from those updates
> If your claim above was correct, YouTube would of simply already monetized the channel and unblocked the videos.
No, they can't do that, but they can end the service until a new contract is signed. Which is exactly what happened.
The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.
No, they can't do that, but they can end the service until a new contract is signed. Which is exactly what happened.
The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.
> The YT ToS does not create an obligation on YT's part to serve your videos.
Correct. The issue here is that they blocked the videos (not plain removal) with no warning or stated limit, and then demanded monetization to unblock the videos, thus creating a duress situation.
If YouTube had a stated policy saying "Videos getting over 250k views must be monetized" or sent a 90 day warning the situation would be different.
Instead YouTube blocked the videos without warning and then demanded a new monetization contract to restore service. That reeks of a duress case.
Correct. The issue here is that they blocked the videos (not plain removal) with no warning or stated limit, and then demanded monetization to unblock the videos, thus creating a duress situation.
If YouTube had a stated policy saying "Videos getting over 250k views must be monetized" or sent a 90 day warning the situation would be different.
Instead YouTube blocked the videos without warning and then demanded a new monetization contract to restore service. That reeks of a duress case.
It's a bit of a stretch to call it a contract I think. Terms of service may in fact be a contact, but IANAL, but calling it a contract might imply that there are things to be gained on both sides. If a contract is no longer providing value for one of the contractees then it is fair, and should be provisions for such, to renegotiate or terminate the contract.
I do agree that they are abusing their position, but I don't agree that they shouldn't be allowed to act the way they are acting. Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.
I do agree that they are abusing their position, but I don't agree that they shouldn't be allowed to act the way they are acting. Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.
> "Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that."
What a ridiculous statement. It's everybody's right and place to decide for themselves whether or not they think youtube is being reasonable.
What a ridiculous statement. It's everybody's right and place to decide for themselves whether or not they think youtube is being reasonable.
Well, it's not my place because I don't put videos on Youtube and rarely if ever watch them. Sorry, I may have assumed too much. We also don't know all the details as to why they are doing this. We can only assume it is unreasonable. We shouldn't assume anything.
> Are they being unreasonable? Maybe, but it's not my, or your, place to decide that.
Whose is it then? This is playing out in public; the public is free to opine.
Some things that are free of legal consequences come with consequences in other realms, and that's perfectly okay.
Whose is it then? This is playing out in public; the public is free to opine.
Some things that are free of legal consequences come with consequences in other realms, and that's perfectly okay.
For free?
YouTube gives Google _unparalleled_ access to what we like, how we think, what we want, ... It's the best profiling tool there is.
Let's not say "for free" when we are paying a price for it already.
YouTube gives Google _unparalleled_ access to what we like, how we think, what we want, ... It's the best profiling tool there is.
Let's not say "for free" when we are paying a price for it already.
Yes, for free. You can create an account and upload as many videos as you want without paying absolutely anything. Even more, without handing over any personal information.
But hey, feel free to upload your videos elsewhere.
But hey, feel free to upload your videos elsewhere.
You're giving them content they can monetize, so it's no wonder they will let you give it to them for free.
> You're giving them content they can monetize
Well, exactly, content they can monetize.
Well, exactly, content they can monetize.
By uploading videos you normally provide personal information: info about the video, context and, most of the time, the video itself.
By accessing videos you normally provide personal information: ip address, playlists, access history, browser fingerprint, device id,...
By accessing videos you normally provide personal information: ip address, playlists, access history, browser fingerprint, device id,...
I don't think Blender is providing any personal information in the video.
Not to mention that you can upload it from a burner account and device in a cafe.
Oh, and you always have to option, well, not to upload it.
Not to mention that you can upload it from a burner account and device in a cafe.
Oh, and you always have to option, well, not to upload it.
> Offering to host your videos for free
For free? No. For your valuable data. You think youtube is worth over $100 billion because it's hosting your videos for free?
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/youtube-might-be-worth-o...
For free? No. For your valuable data. You think youtube is worth over $100 billion because it's hosting your videos for free?
https://www.thestreet.com/investing/youtube-might-be-worth-o...
4 days now (since the 15th at least) and nothing out of YT. I realize that the portion of their viewers interested in MIT OCW or Blender is small, compared to the portion interested in FNAF and dental surgery on characters from Frozen... but it's also probably the portion they want to piss off least as an internet company.
ed: see below comment from OscarCunningham
ed: see below comment from OscarCunningham
This will barely register as a blip for YouTube. They'll survive and be more profitable afterwards.
The hope for many, perhaps a vain one, is that negatively impacting technical organizations (open source projects or MIT's ability to host computer science course videos) will have a disproportionate effect on the developers of youtube who on average might care about about these sort of organizations more than others. It could hurt youtube developer morale and/or their ability to recruit.
More basically, I only see their ads because there are non-ad videos that draw me to the site and give me a reasonable average impression of the combination of content and ads I see. Remove non-ad videos from YouTube and you would need to cut ads down by 50% to retain viewers like me.. the lower split of sharing on all content and/or lower viewer numbers will further dustress people with ads enabled on their content.. pushing them further into a death spiral of low profitability, poor content and inadequate incentives for the commercial content they apparently want.
PeerTube fundraiser: https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
For those not familiar with this fundraising platform, it appears to be legit. I asked them about it last month: https://cybre.space/@Riley/100131447697085131
It is indeed, and is quite popular in France for nonprofit or social projects.
It seems to me that YouTube's business model is ad supported. They need to run ads to pay for infrastructure
to support the service and make profit for themselves, since they are not charging the user. So a sufficiently large channel that does not permit ads will eat into their revenues.i.e. it becomes an expensive free rider. This, I guess, is the reason behind the decision. I suppose it makes sense. But I don't see why they don't offer a paid option to entities like Blender who don't want ads?
More to the point, why don't they go ahead and permit those of us who are paying them -- i.e., YouTube Red subscribers -- to view the blocked videos?
I suspect that that would not result in sufficient revenue to offset the costs of hosting Blender's videos.
And that would be my problem because...?
If they need to charge more, then they should charge more. YT Red is arguably too cheap.
If they need to charge more, then they should charge more. YT Red is arguably too cheap.
But then you are paywalling access to videos of non-profit organisation. Meaning
1. Blender will have to use different platform to make them accessible to everyone anyway.
2. Youtube/Google are still making money on otherwise free content.
Don't get me wrong i think they should get money for hosting but they want much more than that. That is the reason why they don't have any hosting premium plans (like vimeo does). If they did Im sure Blender foundation would pay for hosting of their videos.
Also lets not forget the overall highly positive impact these Blender videos have for the platform. They bring in people from embedded videos and people continue watching more videos (most likely monetized ones). When youtube hosts videos from blender or MIT they also can claim (as they love to do) how big educational impact they have...
Don't get me wrong i think they should get money for hosting but they want much more than that. That is the reason why they don't have any hosting premium plans (like vimeo does). If they did Im sure Blender foundation would pay for hosting of their videos.
Also lets not forget the overall highly positive impact these Blender videos have for the platform. They bring in people from embedded videos and people continue watching more videos (most likely monetized ones). When youtube hosts videos from blender or MIT they also can claim (as they love to do) how big educational impact they have...
The argument against that idea is that YouTube freely offers the choice to monetise or not monetise any video, if popular videos being hosted without monetisation is an issue for them then it's their duty to make it clear that clicking that button might mean having your entire channel destroyed without warning or explanation.
Which is frankly ridiculous anyway, if they want to change the rules for unmonetised videos, they should actually change the rules, have a setting on the button that says "if the video becomes popular enough, YouTube reserves the right to run our own advertising against the video" and just run ads.
Which is frankly ridiculous anyway, if they want to change the rules for unmonetised videos, they should actually change the rules, have a setting on the button that says "if the video becomes popular enough, YouTube reserves the right to run our own advertising against the video" and just run ads.
Actually YouTube has started a patronage "Sponsorship" system, where users pay $5 a month to support a channel (and get "perks").
Yes. But this puts the burden on blender's viewers. That may not result in sufficient revenue. (Generally charging the viewer is not a winning revenue generation strategy.) The creator may more resources to pay and definitely more incentive.
I've been sponsoring a channel for a few months now but still find that youtube runs ads on their videos. I guess the perks are for exclusive live chats and stuff. Still, it's better than not having a sponsorship system.
Blender is the epic example of free software slowly eventually eating the big proprietary guys' lunch. Volunteers spending countless hours writing software, because they were fed up with the very high pricing point of the alternatives (Maya, 3DS). Now hopefully they can kick off the eating of large internet incumbents like Youtube, maybe using some decentralized free video sharing like PeerTube. I love watching blender tutorials. I hope this creates more competition in this space (online video hosting).
Remember that Blender started as proprietary software created by a Dutch company. The software was close source from its inception until 2002 when the parent company went bankrupt and the creator started a crowdfunding campaign to buy and open the source from the holding company's liquidation sale.
Yes, and then it was able to start slowly taking over the world. I see the value of a proprietary cash-fueled kick start, but it wasn't the driving factor in blender's adoption, and other projects show it's clearly not necessary in the general case.
I'm just pointing out it was originally proprietary and that's where it built a reputation that made it worth opening and supporting. Software doesn't know if it's proprietarily licensed or not. Great ideas are only GPL. OSS is great, but it doesn't mean proprietary software is bad or evil.
Yeah I watched an interview. It was cool how he says most of the major modeller refactors, and other very important code contributions were donated by volunteers.
This is great news for PeerTube! Since Blender as an established community, I hope PeerTube will gain traction from it.
In at least a small way, it already has. I'd not heard of PeerTube prior to reading this submission, and now I'm interested.
For what it's worth peertube is running a crowdfunding campaign now if anyone is interested:
https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
Indeed! I've been intrigued enough to look into hosting an instance on a video-related domain I have knocking about
And that's already great!
Blender is actually my favorite example of a beautifully made, professional-level OSS tool. The way the interface renders, the way the interface is thought out -- it's truly a pleasure to use. Given the Python backend interface and graphics/game engine, I've considered using it for completely unrelated projects -- I could see it being used for video/display jockeying, or aerial survey flight control, for example.
It would be rather ironic if Blender was able to remove Youtube's dominance :-)
I really hope we will be looking back at this moment in 3 years or whatever as the beginning of something big. We are long overdue to "myspacifiy" some of the current regents of the web.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be better if Blender uploaded directly to archive.org or archive.is? As much as it's interesting on a technical level, the fact that PeerTube is by nature decentralized and self-hosted is going to reduce Blender's overall visibility (which is what I think Alphabet/Google wants).
Whether Alphabet is still making any money off SketchUp, or whether one of the 3D companies is paying them something, I think this move was intentionally targeted on their part. And unfortunately, like most of the things that have happened ever since Google completely dropped the first word from "Don't Be Evil", I'm terrified that they're going to win.
Whether Alphabet is still making any money off SketchUp, or whether one of the 3D companies is paying them something, I think this move was intentionally targeted on their part. And unfortunately, like most of the things that have happened ever since Google completely dropped the first word from "Don't Be Evil", I'm terrified that they're going to win.
As much as I'm against corporate power in general, and worried about Google in particular : I very much doubt that this is an editorial move from youtubr: it seems much more likely that this is automated monetization machinery run amok.
I mean, we're talking about the company that's drowning its users in chat applications/protocols.
That said, the i agree that archive.org or Wikimedia might be good ways to publish. Still, much like blender's other "big projects" (make film, make game etc) - this move potentially helps build out a working distributed video system.
I mean, we're talking about the company that's drowning its users in chat applications/protocols.
That said, the i agree that archive.org or Wikimedia might be good ways to publish. Still, much like blender's other "big projects" (make film, make game etc) - this move potentially helps build out a working distributed video system.
You don't seem to have read the link. There were humans in the loop.
Sure; a semi-automated monetization machinery run amok, then.
But the fact that sales drones at Google are handed broken procedures and ordered to chase forced monitization at cross-purposes of certain prominent users - still doesn't mean there's any editorializing working against the Blender foundation in order to further sketchup.
I'm sure Google management would be thrilled if they were able to organize half such a conspiracy to straighten out their own chat apps.
But the fact that sales drones at Google are handed broken procedures and ordered to chase forced monitization at cross-purposes of certain prominent users - still doesn't mean there's any editorializing working against the Blender foundation in order to further sketchup.
I'm sure Google management would be thrilled if they were able to organize half such a conspiracy to straighten out their own chat apps.
SketchUp is no longer Google/Alphabet owned. It was sold to Trimble (a GPS/Geospatial company)
Unfortunately, I have neither the resources nor the energy to do a real deep dive into Trimble and their relationship with Alphabet. Even if they don't own that particular piece of software, what evidence is there that it's not bringing Alphabet money?
What is terrifying about this? Why should Google pay for hosting and distributing your video online forever without making any money? How's that "evil"?
Because they allowed it until now and it's been years since.
Changing their policies now hurts non-profit organizations like the Blender Foundation and is in effect a bait and switch. Google is using at this point its monopoly to coerce their partners and users into accepting whatever the heck they want. Personally I don't understand them. This is clearly about a very popular channel that is bringing them eyeballs.
I also have no sympathy for their need to monetize — several years back we had a protest in my country against a gold mining company and the YouTube videos made by protesters where preceded by ads of the mining company, ads which were lying and that couldn't be reported for that.
Ads on YouTube are dangerous as they aren't just about products or services, but about social and political issues too and whomever has the bucks to pay wins more attention. As an author, having the ability to disable ads for certain videos is common sense.
---
Also, Google, I would have registered for YouTube Red to pay cash for an ad free experience, but you haven't made it available in my country yet and I've been waiting for a long time.
Changing their policies now hurts non-profit organizations like the Blender Foundation and is in effect a bait and switch. Google is using at this point its monopoly to coerce their partners and users into accepting whatever the heck they want. Personally I don't understand them. This is clearly about a very popular channel that is bringing them eyeballs.
I also have no sympathy for their need to monetize — several years back we had a protest in my country against a gold mining company and the YouTube videos made by protesters where preceded by ads of the mining company, ads which were lying and that couldn't be reported for that.
Ads on YouTube are dangerous as they aren't just about products or services, but about social and political issues too and whomever has the bucks to pay wins more attention. As an author, having the ability to disable ads for certain videos is common sense.
---
Also, Google, I would have registered for YouTube Red to pay cash for an ad free experience, but you haven't made it available in my country yet and I've been waiting for a long time.
>Also, Google, I would have registered for YouTube Red to pay cash for an ad free experience, but you haven't made it available in my country yet and I've been waiting for a long time.
Pay them for no ads? Nope, that's why I have Disconnect, Ghostery, uBlock Origin, and some userscripts enabled along with a fairly extensive HOSTS file.
Pay them for no ads? Nope, that's why I have Disconnect, Ghostery, uBlock Origin, and some userscripts enabled along with a fairly extensive HOSTS file.
Well, people like you are the reason for why we can't have nice things.
You make it look like they are starving to death there when in fact it's about generating MORE revenue every year despite the costs because this is what Wallstreet expects you to do.
That they aren’t “starving” or the amount of revenue they generate is irrelevant. What wallstreet expects or not is also irrelevant.
If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.
It happened before with DRM, it can always happen again. At which point people will cry out in support of privacy or security, but it will be too late, because the truth is the vast majority don’t care about privacy or security.
So yeah, keep sticking it to the man.
If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.
It happened before with DRM, it can always happen again. At which point people will cry out in support of privacy or security, but it will be too late, because the truth is the vast majority don’t care about privacy or security.
So yeah, keep sticking it to the man.
> "If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal."
When an embattled government tries to kill a single insurgent sniper by leveling an entire city block using artillery, which side gains from that? Provoking responses that are perceived as wildly disproportionate is an intermediate objective of insurgents.
When an embattled government tries to kill a single insurgent sniper by leveling an entire city block using artillery, which side gains from that? Provoking responses that are perceived as wildly disproportionate is an intermediate objective of insurgents.
No it's not irrevant what Wallstreet expects. Please don't be ignorant. This is not some church or club we're talking about.
> If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.
We Ad-Blocking software users laughed about that already in the 90s. Think about it. Same goes for DRM. A giant waste of money.
The net grew from then on and it still is while computing power, web design, etc. got cheaper. So how do you explain it to yourself? Just think about it for a moment.
There is no other justification then the need to generate MORE revenue. This is why you get less for more.
The more google rapes here those who make the content for them, the essence of their existence, the more they threaten this part of their business because with every step away from centralized businesses like YouTube, they'll lose revenue or good. It won't come back. Nobody is coming back to Myspace or Facebook. In the end they just need to not be popular anymore and that doesn't take much or long those days.
> If users refuse to pay for subscriptions and keep blocking ads for reasons that have nothing to do with privacy or security, pretty soon as-blockers will become illegal.
We Ad-Blocking software users laughed about that already in the 90s. Think about it. Same goes for DRM. A giant waste of money.
The net grew from then on and it still is while computing power, web design, etc. got cheaper. So how do you explain it to yourself? Just think about it for a moment.
There is no other justification then the need to generate MORE revenue. This is why you get less for more.
The more google rapes here those who make the content for them, the essence of their existence, the more they threaten this part of their business because with every step away from centralized businesses like YouTube, they'll lose revenue or good. It won't come back. Nobody is coming back to Myspace or Facebook. In the end they just need to not be popular anymore and that doesn't take much or long those days.
People who reward companies like Alphabet are the reason we don't have nice things.
You need a lesson in economy.
By using an ad-blocker and not paying for a subscription you’re telling them that they should be continuing to serve ads and track users, while at the same time you’re not encouraging their competition, which ensures their continued monopoly on the market.
Out of all possibilities, not paying for a subscription while at the same time blocking their ads, is the worst path you can take.
Out of all possibilities, not paying for a subscription while at the same time blocking their ads, is the worst path you can take.
You need a lesson in common sense. Throwing more of your money at Alphabet is not going to make them a nicer company. You're deluding yourself if you honestly think that. You're in a wildly asymmetric relationship with a multi-billion dollar international corporation and you think you can win their favor by sucking up to them; it isn't hyperbole to compare this to Stockholm Syndrome.
Teach the general public to use adblockers, mpv/vlc, etc to encourage increasingly desperate responses from Alphabet. Teach people to use youtube-dl to exfiltrate data they care about, to eliminate leverage the corporation has over them. As Alphabet responds with increasing harshness, use that as further justification to get more people on your side. Every time their hand is forced and they screw over content creators even more, they lose that much more control over the situation. This form of accelerationism is a standard modern guerilla warfare tactic with proven effectiveness. This is how you fight them. Not by signing up to give them more money. No matter how much money you give them, you will never be friends with them.
Teach the general public to use adblockers, mpv/vlc, etc to encourage increasingly desperate responses from Alphabet. Teach people to use youtube-dl to exfiltrate data they care about, to eliminate leverage the corporation has over them. As Alphabet responds with increasing harshness, use that as further justification to get more people on your side. Every time their hand is forced and they screw over content creators even more, they lose that much more control over the situation. This form of accelerationism is a standard modern guerilla warfare tactic with proven effectiveness. This is how you fight them. Not by signing up to give them more money. No matter how much money you give them, you will never be friends with them.
Low quality advertising is why we can't have nice things. Google and Facebook are Kings of that.
You are absolutely right!
Google has been suffering under all this user generated content dragging even more visitors to their already struggling hosting infrastructure for too long!
It's time for relief! Let's move the burden of user generated content away and let others suffer!
Free Google!
Free Google!
Monopoly of convenience and loyalty capture
There's no good reason why, but that's why we try to regulate monopolies
There's no good reason why, but that's why we try to regulate monopolies
There are a lot of good reasons why monopolies should be regulated.
I meant why Google should pay for hosting free stuff
The evil part is that they are unclear about their conditions for the hosting. If all that would be part of their official 'Terms and Conditions' nobody would complain.
Hmmm... If they only didn't track us on every mouse move, every click, every video and every recommendation. That's an exchange, I'm a product for using their product.
'codelord:working on ml @google' haha. using accrued inertia/loyalty to bully/force `mit ocw` and `blender` to adopt more convenient terms for the company is, at minimum, a dick move.
but i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
but i get it, you got some stock and you gotta protect that bottom line.
If I didn't know any better I'd think everyone who's commenting on hackernews is running a charity and building products and giving it to the users for free at a loss.
If I didn't know any better I'd think your didn't even read the comments and your sucking up to your employer and greed have clouded your perception of reality.
You should have known that people won't buy your "poor google is dying under the load of Blender videos" approach. Now that you're faced with the facts you try to dramatize the situation even more. I guess the recruiting standards at google went down rapidly or are you the outcome of this recently abolished recruiting strategy?
You should have known that people won't buy your "poor google is dying under the load of Blender videos" approach. Now that you're faced with the facts you try to dramatize the situation even more. I guess the recruiting standards at google went down rapidly or are you the outcome of this recently abolished recruiting strategy?
[deleted]
The next step will be that you won't be indexed by Google's web search engine if you don't have AdSense for Content ads. Why? Because the steam is going out of Google's ad business[1], and Google has no other business. They have added just about all of the advertising on their own pages they can get away with and they started by squeezing channels with fewer than 4k views a month, and now their squeezing channels that choose not to show ads.
Thinks about what this means in the big picture, Google cannot get enough people showing ads on their videos to support people who choose not to show ads. What percentage of Youtube videos don't show ads? 5% ? 10%?
Don't hate me for it, but my prediction is that the next lifeline Google will reach for will be charging money for turn by turn directions in maps. They really need to find some way other than search ads to make money.
[1] This is hyperbole, I don't think they will deindex sites but I can see it affecting the page rank.
Thinks about what this means in the big picture, Google cannot get enough people showing ads on their videos to support people who choose not to show ads. What percentage of Youtube videos don't show ads? 5% ? 10%?
Don't hate me for it, but my prediction is that the next lifeline Google will reach for will be charging money for turn by turn directions in maps. They really need to find some way other than search ads to make money.
[1] This is hyperbole, I don't think they will deindex sites but I can see it affecting the page rank.
IMO Google just has executive level incentives for cutting waste so someone over at youtube realized they could get a nice juicy bonus if they went after blender for all the subsidized bandwidth they've been using. A marker will be moved, someone will get promoted, and the world will keep spinning.
If Google was really hurting for money they'd curb all the hiring they've been doing.
If Google was really hurting for money they'd curb all the hiring they've been doing.
Is the charging for turn by turn directions also hyperbole? Because I don’t see how that could happen. For one, taking something free and then charging for it generally doesn’t really work. More importantly, though, the free competitors are too sophisticated, so the vast majority would just switch to them.
Not hyperbole. I really do think Google will start charging for that at some point in the next 5 years.
Good luck with that when Apple offer the same thing for free on iOS.
And FLOSS on OsmAnd
I've found that OsmAnd's directions are high quality, but it's UX needs some more TLC. It's something I can use because I found poking around at it somehow enjoyable, but it's not something I can yet recommend to people who aren't peculiar in that sense.
I'm not saying they are perfect, but I installed it on my parents' phone and the learning curve is not that steep. They are perfectly usable by mere muggles.
OsmAnd is being developed at a steady pace, and the UX is being improved.
OsmAnd is being developed at a steady pace, and the UX is being improved.
>Don't hate me for it, but my prediction is that the next lifeline Google will reach for
Lifeline? Google is hardly in a bad financial situation.
Lifeline? Google is hardly in a bad financial situation.
I understand that not everyone sees it that way.
For me, it matches up with Google destroying the user value of Google sites (like with the Blender videos in the article), and removing 99% of organic search out of their search engine when their algorithm determines that they might be able to convert the query into some cash, or the line they have crossed repeatedly even after being slapped by the EU not once but twice! to make vendors pay for ranking in the top results of search.
For me, I've been watching their CPC numbers drop for decades (that, in my opinion, is a reasonable proxy for the 'profit margin' on clicks) and I've seen them pay more and more to direct traffic to their sites as their organic traffic has dried up.
I see their business model under siege, their profit margins eroding, their efforts at monetization becoming more and more off putting to the data cows they are trying to milk, and conclude they are in fact dying.
For me, it matches up with Google destroying the user value of Google sites (like with the Blender videos in the article), and removing 99% of organic search out of their search engine when their algorithm determines that they might be able to convert the query into some cash, or the line they have crossed repeatedly even after being slapped by the EU not once but twice! to make vendors pay for ranking in the top results of search.
For me, I've been watching their CPC numbers drop for decades (that, in my opinion, is a reasonable proxy for the 'profit margin' on clicks) and I've seen them pay more and more to direct traffic to their sites as their organic traffic has dried up.
I see their business model under siege, their profit margins eroding, their efforts at monetization becoming more and more off putting to the data cows they are trying to milk, and conclude they are in fact dying.
> Google cannot get enough people showing ads on their videos to support people who choose not to show ads.
Or maybe they just don't want to.
Or maybe they just don't want to.
That is possible, but I think it unlikely based on the following reasoning, if you are watching a video without an ad on Youtube, when it finishes they have an opportunity to share a bunch of similar videos that you might like, ones that do have ads. If you end up not going to Youtube at all because the ad free video is hosted elsewhere they lose that opportunity to "sell" you on a video with an advert in it.
When I was at Blekko we were analyzing this sort of thing pretty hard. We found that a web page with no ads could point to pages with ads and that the expected rate of return on traffic to the ad free page could be calculated (it was non-zero revenue). I would agree that is only a proxy for browsing behavior as the Youtube example consumes resources for the ad free video as well, but unless YouTube has even worse monetization than the most cynical predictions, I would guess it would be worth it to have the Ad free video surrounded by suggestions.
When I was at Blekko we were analyzing this sort of thing pretty hard. We found that a web page with no ads could point to pages with ads and that the expected rate of return on traffic to the ad free page could be calculated (it was non-zero revenue). I would agree that is only a proxy for browsing behavior as the Youtube example consumes resources for the ad free video as well, but unless YouTube has even worse monetization than the most cynical predictions, I would guess it would be worth it to have the Ad free video surrounded by suggestions.
It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely. Their main goal, as I see it, is to transition into a centralized and much more controlled content platform run much more like a traditional TV network used to be. This will enable them to achieve Eric Schmidt's stated goal of taking the reins of human culture to protect the poor from themselves (which he states, though not in those words, in his book 'The New Digital Age'). They also think it makes them more attractive to advertisers (although there is abundant proof now that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred and YouTube has only grown as an advertising platform... they see this as 'in spite of' niche content being present, not 'because of').
So if there are large channels that have milquetoast content that is non-controversial (for now, it won't take long before all educational content beyond elementary school level is de facto controversial) but aren't monetized, that really leaves YouTube out in the cold. Paying the hosting costs AND they don't have any increased leverage to regulate those channels contents? Worst case scenario as far as they're concerned... but they also don't want that content hopping to a different platform. Google didn't run YouTube at a staggering loss for a decade for nothing, they did it to suppress competition in the video space and guarantee no one could afford to compete with them unless they also had a search engine advertising business that could prop up the titanic losses.
So if there are large channels that have milquetoast content that is non-controversial (for now, it won't take long before all educational content beyond elementary school level is de facto controversial) but aren't monetized, that really leaves YouTube out in the cold. Paying the hosting costs AND they don't have any increased leverage to regulate those channels contents? Worst case scenario as far as they're concerned... but they also don't want that content hopping to a different platform. Google didn't run YouTube at a staggering loss for a decade for nothing, they did it to suppress competition in the video space and guarantee no one could afford to compete with them unless they also had a search engine advertising business that could prop up the titanic losses.
> I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now...
An alternative solution would be for youtube to compete with patreon, allow sponsorship directly and take a cut. They have in fact been testing this on select channels. On some big channels you see a "sponsor" button next to the "subscribe" button.
An alternative solution would be for youtube to compete with patreon, allow sponsorship directly and take a cut. They have in fact been testing this on select channels. On some big channels you see a "sponsor" button next to the "subscribe" button.
Yeah, but much like with live streaming, that ship has already left port. Twitch.tv (aka, Amazon) has like 80% of the market. YouTube's streaming has only recently been good enough to use.
Patreon's also got inertia for crowd funding and donations. Twitch has had paid subscriptions for a fairly long time and you still see Twitch streamers talking about their Patreon. Twitch only recently added multi tier support, but their bits for donations has essentially killed PayPal (largely since PayPal's service isn't very good).
There are people throwing cash at the screen, and YouTube is taking the slow road and they're going to end up as far behind as IBM was in the 90s.
Patreon's also got inertia for crowd funding and donations. Twitch has had paid subscriptions for a fairly long time and you still see Twitch streamers talking about their Patreon. Twitch only recently added multi tier support, but their bits for donations has essentially killed PayPal (largely since PayPal's service isn't very good).
There are people throwing cash at the screen, and YouTube is taking the slow road and they're going to end up as far behind as IBM was in the 90s.
> It makes sense that YouTube would do this. I've been expecting YouTube to go after channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations with full teeth and claws for awhile now, and still expect it is coming. Channels not running ads reduced YouTube to a free video hosting service and cuts them out of the revenue loop completely.
No. This doesn't make sense. The channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations could still be monetized by YouTube, even with ads. The real motivational structure is contaminated by politics and a desire by actors within YouTube to engage in the exercise censorious power using the YouTube platform. Otherwise, YouTube would be running it's own version of Patreon and letting non-mainstream advertisers buy ads on channels not suitable for mainstream advertisers.
Beware of authoritarian mindsets taking over your corporate culture. This can result in a corporate culture incapable of "hands off" policies which can be necessary to foster an ecosystem, and let the company organically adapt to the true direction of the market.
No. This doesn't make sense. The channels that are primarily supported by Patreon donations could still be monetized by YouTube, even with ads. The real motivational structure is contaminated by politics and a desire by actors within YouTube to engage in the exercise censorious power using the YouTube platform. Otherwise, YouTube would be running it's own version of Patreon and letting non-mainstream advertisers buy ads on channels not suitable for mainstream advertisers.
Beware of authoritarian mindsets taking over your corporate culture. This can result in a corporate culture incapable of "hands off" policies which can be necessary to foster an ecosystem, and let the company organically adapt to the true direction of the market.
I never thought I would see the day that Google removed Big Buck Bunny, the definitive copyleft short film, on copyright infringment grounds, against the actual creators, and there would actually be some argument over whether or not this was proper....
Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't?
That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.
That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot. The vast majority of creators with many views do want to monetize, YouTube is losing almost nothing by allowing people not to if they choose. They must be really be desparate for revenue over there.
More like if you're a particularly popular channel with revenue and a budget. YouTube isn't a service for nonprofits to use to offload their bandwidth costs. If you have money to pay for your other expenses, it's not reasonable to expect this one supplier to do it for free. Morally, Google deserves some kind of reimbursement here.
Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is here.
Advertising is certainly one way to square that. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is here.
Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application -- you're right. YouTube does have that right. And I have the right to think holding the dissemination of free educational material hostage to make a quick buck is reprehensible.
Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
Also don't forget that YouTube gave them the option to not advertise on those videos. It's so arbitrarily capricious I was convinced it was a technical mishap when the news first broke.
> Aside from the fact that Blender is a non-profit backing a free, open-source application
The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like).
And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever. Why is their video hosting any different?
The Blender Foundation isn't "Blender", though. It's a financial entity with income (there's literally a giant "donate" link on their home page) and expenses. They pay for all sorts of stuff that they need (obviously I have no clue what their balance sheet looks like).
And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever. Why is their video hosting any different?
> And no one whines that they don't get free conference admission or airline tickets or printer paper or whatever
Those are terrible analogies. YouTube offers free hosting with the ability to opt out of monetizing your videos -- features that they will apparently punish you for using. That is absurdly user-hostile.
Those are terrible analogies. YouTube offers free hosting with the ability to opt out of monetizing your videos -- features that they will apparently punish you for using. That is absurdly user-hostile.
Meh. And we've come full circle. It seems to my eyes that they only "punish" you for not advertising if you have the means to pay other expenses but want to freeload on youtube specifically. And I don't see why I should care about that.
It's very likely that Blender is going to have the same problem with Dailymotion and Vimeo too. No one wants to (or has the means) to be a dumping ground for hosting other people's content. We all have to share in this world. As it happens advertising is the mechanism YouTube offers for sharing revenue.
It's very likely that Blender is going to have the same problem with Dailymotion and Vimeo too. No one wants to (or has the means) to be a dumping ground for hosting other people's content. We all have to share in this world. As it happens advertising is the mechanism YouTube offers for sharing revenue.
You make fair points. The biggest issue here is YouTube's recurrent communication problem. Blender and MIT Open Courseware, I am almost sure, were blindsided by this change. They would have worked out a plan ahead of time otherwise. Just like so many other Youtubers blindsided by all the new rules, so were they. That, fundamentally, is user hostile.
You're missing the point. Why offer the option to opt out of ads at all other than to bait-and-switch?
Same reason a coffee shop might offer to let you charge your phone/laptop batteries for free and then take that away when they see you are running an extension cord to your office.
So in this analogy opting out of ads is for who, exactly? Videos nobody watches anyways?
It's for you. And me. And any person or organization that wants to put up a video for the public to see.
But it's not for people and organizations who are being funded to put up those videos. If you are deriving revenue from that video stream, whether or not it's a "profit" legally, then it's not unreasonable for you to be expected to pay for it. Advertising with shared revenue is the standard mechanism for paying for youtube videos.
But it's not for people and organizations who are being funded to put up those videos. If you are deriving revenue from that video stream, whether or not it's a "profit" legally, then it's not unreasonable for you to be expected to pay for it. Advertising with shared revenue is the standard mechanism for paying for youtube videos.
> If you are deriving revenue from that video stream
By opting out of ads you're also opting out of your share of the revenue so by definition you're avoiding a potential profit stream. I think you'd have a fair point if it was a publicly-listed company complaining about ads hosted for free on YouTube but come on -- these are free, educational videos hosted for the explicit purpose of democratizing knowledge.
Again, you're not wrong. YouTube is within their rights to do this. I just think it's an incredibly disappointing move from Google.
By opting out of ads you're also opting out of your share of the revenue so by definition you're avoiding a potential profit stream. I think you'd have a fair point if it was a publicly-listed company complaining about ads hosted for free on YouTube but come on -- these are free, educational videos hosted for the explicit purpose of democratizing knowledge.
Again, you're not wrong. YouTube is within their rights to do this. I just think it's an incredibly disappointing move from Google.
> hosted for the explicit purpose of democratizing knowledge.
That's outrageously spun. They're Blender evangelism. Having those videos out there helps Blender get users and visibility and (here's the important part) donations, that they can then use to make Blender better by paying for stuff that Blender needs to get better.
Except for video hosting. You think they shouldn't be required to pay for video hosting the same way they are for member reimbursements. Because... I dunno, Google is evil or something.
That's outrageously spun. They're Blender evangelism. Having those videos out there helps Blender get users and visibility and (here's the important part) donations, that they can then use to make Blender better by paying for stuff that Blender needs to get better.
Except for video hosting. You think they shouldn't be required to pay for video hosting the same way they are for member reimbursements. Because... I dunno, Google is evil or something.
Actually, tech conferences are expensive to attend, and there's been a growing movement the past few years for conferences to at least comp the ticket of someone who's scheduled to speak.
Fair enough. But I don't see rage posts at the top of HN about how Blender can't get a free ticket at SIGGRAPH.
If its not monetized, then YouTube has no way to make money off the views; no way to recoup the costs associated with hosting those videos. History, morality, and good will aside, its in their financial best interest to not allow videos which are not monetized.
Sure, but YouTube gives the option to not monetize your videos. You can't give your users and option and then be upset when some users pick that option.
If people picking that option is causing problems for your business, you take that option away.
If people picking that option is causing problems for your business, you take that option away.
But isn't that what YouTube was essentially trying to do here?
Then they run the risk of ostracizing creators. Creators bring viewers to YouTube. In many ways YT is like Pandora. The "product" of YouTube is other people's creativity.
YT is free to block whatever content they want for whatever reason. However, creators will follow the path of least resistance and viewers will follow creators.
Push the creators away and there will be no viewers to show ads to.
YT is free to block whatever content they want for whatever reason. However, creators will follow the path of least resistance and viewers will follow creators.
Push the creators away and there will be no viewers to show ads to.
Other than using them as loss-leaders, people watch a blender foundation video then deep dive into the multitude of monetized tutorials on the YouTubes.
I'd venture to say most people learning blender will spend a significant time on YouTube, blender isn't the easiest thing to learn by a long shot.
I'd venture to say most people learning blender will spend a significant time on YouTube, blender isn't the easiest thing to learn by a long shot.
That's kind of like saying it's in a restaurant's financial best interest not to give free refills. Running a profitable business is not simply a matter of directly reclaiming every dollar you spend.
Wait, am I reading this right? If you're a particularly popular channel, you're required to monetize and YT will block you if you don't?
That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot.
People using power over the private YouTube platform to push political agendas through censorship crossed the "ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot" threshold awhile back. It's just that it's leaking into the monetization realm.
This is what happens when you let authoritarian mindsets take over your company's culture. You wind up with a company that can't keep its hands off the ecosystem it's supposedly fostering.
That's ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot.
People using power over the private YouTube platform to push political agendas through censorship crossed the "ridiculous, and it's totally shooting yourself in the foot" threshold awhile back. It's just that it's leaking into the monetization realm.
This is what happens when you let authoritarian mindsets take over your company's culture. You wind up with a company that can't keep its hands off the ecosystem it's supposedly fostering.
There are channels that have direct sponsors, I think sometimes the deal with the sponsor is to not monetize the video, so if I get sponsored by Intel I would have to turn off the ads in case an AMD ad would show up.
This is a speculation of mine from what I observed on some tech channels I am not familiar with YT Terms and Conditions.
If you get third party sponsors and not allow monetization is YT getting nothing? If yes then we can see what they are trying to make here.
This is a speculation of mine from what I observed on some tech channels I am not familiar with YT Terms and Conditions.
If you get third party sponsors and not allow monetization is YT getting nothing? If yes then we can see what they are trying to make here.
If I skipped Hanlon's Razor and jumped to assuming your speculations are right, then I'd say Google wants to head off a future where people specifically donate to those who aren't doing ad-monetizing (i.e. the only ones who actually deserve donations!!)
Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…
Google wants creators funded, but they want the system to push their ad-focused approach. The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…
They should set up a way for viewers to fund creators through YouTube itself instead of through a third-party crowdfunding service. That way, they can take their cut for keeping the lights on. Since they know what videos you watch, they could automatically distribute teh monies the same way they already do, but just not show you an ad.
What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium.
And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
What would be really nice, from a viewer standpoint, would be if it was done on a flat subscription rate, like Sirius XM and the BBC do it. Basically make a premium version of YouTube, but I'm sure their marketing department will try to give it a cooler, but less useful, name than YouTube Premium.
And they shouldn't freaking block videos because the creators flipped a switch. That's just stupid. If they're not willing to offer the videos without ads, then offer the videos with ads.
They are happy enough to get into that world if it's part of keeping everyone on YouTube where they still get to be the dominant ad system overall.
Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model.
What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up.
http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...
Google's strategy as they offer patronage options will be to make it a ransom that removes ads. That way, the ads are still there for non-patrons and Google gets to keep their primary business model.
What I'm saying is that patronage should go to those who treat the public better by not showing ads to anyone. We shouldn't reward bad behavior through ransoms that make the bad stuff go away just for those who pay up.
http://mimiandeunice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ME_486_P...
They're actually trialing this feature.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6304294
> The last thing Google wants is a future where the (unethical, horrible, destructive) surveillance-capitalism-ad-tech economy goes away…
Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
> Because the corporate culture of Google/YouTube has changed into one of authoritarian adherence. This is the natural result.
Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate?
There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate?
There's a couple simpler, far more plausible explanations.
Really? Is that what you've taken away from the Maven debate?
It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
It's a number of observations. It's only natural that a company like YouTube would seek to monetize and shift towards the mainstream. It's what they are doing with the long tail and the creative margins which is suspect.
Yeah, I don't get it.
Publish something YT doesn't like, and we'll demonetize you!
Publish something YT likes, and... we'll force you to monetize?
Publish something YT doesn't like, and we'll demonetize you!
Publish something YT likes, and... we'll force you to monetize?
I can't see anything in the linked contract that says YT is forcing them to monetize it. Other than one email months ago that hasn't been confirmed I see nothing to suggest this is a policy change YT have actually made.
Since I’m a paying YouTube Red customer, I filed a complaint.
I think if enough people write in, they’ll change their mind.
I think if enough people write in, they’ll change their mind.
Is this something you do via the YouTubeRed app or did you literally write a complaint and emailed it in? I would like to do the same.
As a fellow paying YouTube Red customer, this hadn't occurred to me. I shall do so as well.
As a fellow paying YouTube Premium user I'm glad that YouTube is taking this step to insure the long-term viability of the platform I pay to support.
You like being charged for access to videos and then videos being removed because the content creators didn't pay YouTube as well?
What happened to people liking technical solutions because they could remove rent seeking middle men?
What happened to people liking technical solutions because they could remove rent seeking middle men?
The step being changing their monetization policy without notice or warning, or blocking a popular channel for everyone?
One reason why I will never, ever work at Google. They are a reprehensible company on so many levels.
[deleted]
Why not switch to Vimeo, a well-established and stable video hosting platform? There's no advertising and no shenanigans of ads being forced on your video. The hosting is not free, but at least you have control over your videos and privacy issues.
Peertube, d.tube, and other federated/decentralized streaming service are really not that reliable, at least from my experience.
Peertube, d.tube, and other federated/decentralized streaming service are really not that reliable, at least from my experience.
Vimeo only accepts content that it deems "artistic". Way back in 2008, a site called stage6 shut down, at the time it was the only streaming site that allowed 1080p videos and was the go to site for video game content creators to upload videos. After it shut down many of those users tried out vimeo since they were allowing 720p videos compared to youtube's 480p. Vimeo then deleted the videos and disallowed the content. For a period, things went back to direct downloads instead of streaming, but youtube increased quality and the content shifted over with it.
Edit: Apparently vimeo reversed its position in 2014. https://vimeo.com/blog/post/new-upload-rules
Edit: Apparently vimeo reversed its position in 2014. https://vimeo.com/blog/post/new-upload-rules
Huh? The company I work for hosts all of its marketing videos on Vimeo. Are you sure about this?
I just looked it up, apparently they reversed their position in 2014.
https://vimeo.com/blog/post/new-upload-rules
https://vimeo.com/blog/post/new-upload-rules
[deleted]
because it always buffers 2 seconds into a video
And the next thing would be... let's think... block all gmail accounts for people who use adblock?
Actually, that's an interesting thought. I have a Gmail account I don't use much, but I almost never access it from the web. I only use it with a mail client. I never see any of the ads they would show if I accessed it through the web. I do wonder now if they'll cut it off. I've been trying to move away from using them at all anyway, so no loss if they do, but certainly an interesting idea.
Your emails are too valuable for them already...
For a while Gmail would give a browser incompatiblity warning if you were running an adblocker
There is a paid option if you use adblock in google apps for business.
I find the service is actually quite good, but I'm currently investigating moving to protonmail instead.
I find the service is actually quite good, but I'm currently investigating moving to protonmail instead.
If you're interested in Blender, but come from a ${'insert your favorite creative tool'} background, and want less cognitive load (adaption to quirks that only exist within Blender), check out Bforartists! It's a fork of Blender with better, more familiar UX and behavior.
https://www.bforartists.de/
https://www.bforartists.de/
I didn't know this!
The Blender team is working on Blender 2.8 which will bring a lot of new features, including a lot of UI changes.
There was an article about some of these changes a while ago on their blog [1], and more recently a video showing a lot of these UI changes... available on the Blender Developers Youtube channel (how ironic!) [2].
[1] https://code.blender.org/2018/04/tools-toolbar-and-tool-widg...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZufGqRP6Gc8&t=6s
The Blender team is working on Blender 2.8 which will bring a lot of new features, including a lot of UI changes.
There was an article about some of these changes a while ago on their blog [1], and more recently a video showing a lot of these UI changes... available on the Blender Developers Youtube channel (how ironic!) [2].
[1] https://code.blender.org/2018/04/tools-toolbar-and-tool-widg...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZufGqRP6Gc8&t=6s
Correct me if I am wrong, but if content creators take their content off YouTube and use PeerTube, does this mean that there will be separate instances of PeerTube (e.g., video.blender.org) for each channel/creator? Another example could be if ol' Pewds decided to also do this - would his content be hosted on something like video.pewdiepie.org?
Each instance of peertube is like youtube. There can be many users and users can have many channels. You can choose which instance you want to upload to, since different instances will have different storage limits, user limits, content policies, content focus, moderation, site layout, etc. Or you can run your own instance if you want full control over your content and the site as a whole.
Different instances of peertube can follow each other (doesn't have to be mutual - think twitter follow) and essentially share content to improve discoverability (think twitter timeline showing content from all the instances you follow).
Different instances of peertube can follow each other (doesn't have to be mutual - think twitter follow) and essentially share content to improve discoverability (think twitter timeline showing content from all the instances you follow).
I see, thanks for the clarification.
When it came to searching for all content across all instances (in a way like how we can search all content on YouTube) is this something that would be possible?
When it came to searching for all content across all instances (in a way like how we can search all content on YouTube) is this something that would be possible?
According to [0]:
> The administrators of a PeerTube instance can follow each other. When your PeerTube instance follows another PeerTube instance, you receive the videos preview informations from this instance. This way, you can display the videos available on your instance and on the instances you decided to follow. So you keep control of the videos displayed on your PeerTube instance!
[0] https://joinpeertube.org/en/
> The administrators of a PeerTube instance can follow each other. When your PeerTube instance follows another PeerTube instance, you receive the videos preview informations from this instance. This way, you can display the videos available on your instance and on the instances you decided to follow. So you keep control of the videos displayed on your PeerTube instance!
[0] https://joinpeertube.org/en/
You would need to find an instance of peertube that is following all other instances. There are several peertubes that try to follow as many other instances as possible, but there will always be private or unadvertised instances. If nobody knows a particular instance exists, then nobody can follow it and its content won't be discoverable.
So I had a look at Peertube and had the friendly reminder
"The sharing system used by this video implies that some technical information about your system (such as a public IP address) can be accessed publicly."
Which is then expanded on in an about page:
"PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users. It implies that your public IP address is stored in the public BitTorrent tracker of the video PeerTube instance as long as you're watching the video. If you want to keep your public IP address private, please use a VPN or Tor. "
Seems like a large privacy leak that can be exploited by anyone who signs up to the tracker.
Requiring a VPN or Tor just for privacy from other users seems like an excessive requirement.
"The sharing system used by this video implies that some technical information about your system (such as a public IP address) can be accessed publicly."
Which is then expanded on in an about page:
"PeerTube uses the BitTorrent protocol to share bandwidth between users. It implies that your public IP address is stored in the public BitTorrent tracker of the video PeerTube instance as long as you're watching the video. If you want to keep your public IP address private, please use a VPN or Tor. "
Seems like a large privacy leak that can be exploited by anyone who signs up to the tracker.
Requiring a VPN or Tor just for privacy from other users seems like an excessive requirement.
Is there a reason I don't want to expose my public IP address? Every server I connect to knows my IP address.
Connecting to bittorrent would give you the following information:
* Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address).
* ISP name
* Rough location (mine says I'm in a suburb about 20 miles away, when I'm actually in the city)
* Which files you have and are willing to share.
* Which files you are requesting.
There is no PII, and the only thing interesting would be to do location analysis or to try to cluster the files based on taste (people that watch movie A are likely to also watch movie B)
Connecting to bittorrent would give you the following information:
* Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address).
* ISP name
* Rough location (mine says I'm in a suburb about 20 miles away, when I'm actually in the city)
* Which files you have and are willing to share.
* Which files you are requesting.
There is no PII, and the only thing interesting would be to do location analysis or to try to cluster the files based on taste (people that watch movie A are likely to also watch movie B)
> Is there a reason I don't want to expose my public IP address?
Yes, I like my privacy.
> Every server I connect to knows my IP address.
And in this case it is every server plus every peer which is a much larger number of people having this information.
> * Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address).
Not always. IP addresses can be correlated with other data sources. IP Addresses changing depends on the ISP. People using multiple IP addresses isn't always the case. Multiple people using the same IP address is not always the case.
> There is no PII
IP addresses can be PII depending on who you talk to. e.g. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/eu-dynamic-stati...
This is just another chink in the armour of online privacy no matter how noble the intentions.
Yes, I like my privacy.
> Every server I connect to knows my IP address.
And in this case it is every server plus every peer which is a much larger number of people having this information.
> * Key (IP) to connect to other data sources (but joins will be dirty, IP addresses change, people use multiple ip address, multiple people use the same ip address).
Not always. IP addresses can be correlated with other data sources. IP Addresses changing depends on the ISP. People using multiple IP addresses isn't always the case. Multiple people using the same IP address is not always the case.
> There is no PII
IP addresses can be PII depending on who you talk to. e.g. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/eu-dynamic-stati...
This is just another chink in the armour of online privacy no matter how noble the intentions.
> People using multiple IP addresses isn't always the case. Multiple people using the same IP address is not always the case.
I think sharing ip addresses, and using multiple ones, is probably the most common case in The United States.
Most households have multiple internet users and one ip addresses. Most people have a cellphone connected to the internet. A lot of people access the internet in locations like offices, school, and libraries.
I think sharing ip addresses, and using multiple ones, is probably the most common case in The United States.
Most households have multiple internet users and one ip addresses. Most people have a cellphone connected to the internet. A lot of people access the internet in locations like offices, school, and libraries.
That's what peer to peer means.
Peertube doesn't necessarily mean "Peer to Peer with Bittorrent". The "Peer" could just refer to the federated nature of the servers.
Even then "Peer to Peer" technical details can be lost on people.
Still, kudos to them to actually bring this to the forefront but I won't be using it.
Even then "Peer to Peer" technical details can be lost on people.
Still, kudos to them to actually bring this to the forefront but I won't be using it.
They are only concerned with creating a platform for sharing videos with the mentioned advantages. The privacy part is a separate concern not to force people into connecting to the federated network in only one way. Someone can always create / use a client that has Tor or VPN built-in.
Blender is running their PeerTube test from a European datacenter. I wonder what will happen to the legality of hosting a PeerTube site with public uploads if EU's upload filter law gets passed. Also I wonder how the GDPR will affect them (and anyone else hosting PeerTube in Europe or with EU users)...won't they need to get explicit consent from everyone for getting things like user IP address (so they can protect against spam and DDoS attacks) and won't they have a tough time ensuring everyone who uploads could delete their videos?
Why has YouTube blocked their videos worldwide?
Looks like it's connected to the fact that they had the "Allow advertisements to be displayed alongside my videos" setting turned off. https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
Interesting. From the linked contract between Google and Blender:
"4. ADVERTISING
"4.1 Delivery, Ad Revenues, Payments, Reports.
"Google will have the right, but not the obligation, to serve advertising in any and all Google Services, including but not limited to the display of ads on the Playback Pages and within the YouTube Video Player in conjunction with the display or playback of Provider Content and Monetized Content. Provider will receive 55% of Ad Revenues recognised by Google . If one or more Google content providers claim a portion of Monetized Content for monetization through the Content ID system, Provider will receive a pro rata share of the Ad Revenues that would otherwise be due, with such pro rata share to be determined by Google in its reasonable discretion . Recognized revenues do not include items listed in clause 4.3 or taxes. Payments to Provider for Ad Revenues will be sent by Google within approximately sixty (60) days after the end of any calendar month, provided that Provider’s earned balance is $100 or more in the aggregate. When Provider’s monthly earned balance is less than $100, there will be no payment and the balance will accumulate until it exceeds $100, at which time it will be paid to Provider in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any payments to Provider will be made in the manner that Google pays its partners. Google reserves the right to retain all other revenues derived from Google Services, including without limitation any revenues from ads that may appear on any search results pages. Within thirty (30) days of the end of each month, Google will provide Provider with usage reports in the form generally made available to partners at that time . Google may create an account for Provider to access information about payments owed to Provider. To ensure proper payment, Provider is responsible for providing and maintaining accurate contact and payment information associated with its account."
The interesting statement is the first sentence: "Google will have the right [...] to serve advertising in any and all Google Services, including but not limited to the display of ads on the Playback Pages and within the YouTube Video Player in conjunction with the display or playback of Provider Content and Monetized Content."
"Monitized Content", judging by other parts of the license, appears to be those videos that have "allow ads" checkbox; "Provider Content" are those without that check.
"4. ADVERTISING
"4.1 Delivery, Ad Revenues, Payments, Reports.
"Google will have the right, but not the obligation, to serve advertising in any and all Google Services, including but not limited to the display of ads on the Playback Pages and within the YouTube Video Player in conjunction with the display or playback of Provider Content and Monetized Content. Provider will receive 55% of Ad Revenues recognised by Google . If one or more Google content providers claim a portion of Monetized Content for monetization through the Content ID system, Provider will receive a pro rata share of the Ad Revenues that would otherwise be due, with such pro rata share to be determined by Google in its reasonable discretion . Recognized revenues do not include items listed in clause 4.3 or taxes. Payments to Provider for Ad Revenues will be sent by Google within approximately sixty (60) days after the end of any calendar month, provided that Provider’s earned balance is $100 or more in the aggregate. When Provider’s monthly earned balance is less than $100, there will be no payment and the balance will accumulate until it exceeds $100, at which time it will be paid to Provider in accordance with the preceding sentence. Any payments to Provider will be made in the manner that Google pays its partners. Google reserves the right to retain all other revenues derived from Google Services, including without limitation any revenues from ads that may appear on any search results pages. Within thirty (30) days of the end of each month, Google will provide Provider with usage reports in the form generally made available to partners at that time . Google may create an account for Provider to access information about payments owed to Provider. To ensure proper payment, Provider is responsible for providing and maintaining accurate contact and payment information associated with its account."
The interesting statement is the first sentence: "Google will have the right [...] to serve advertising in any and all Google Services, including but not limited to the display of ads on the Playback Pages and within the YouTube Video Player in conjunction with the display or playback of Provider Content and Monetized Content."
"Monitized Content", judging by other parts of the license, appears to be those videos that have "allow ads" checkbox; "Provider Content" are those without that check.
Yeah, I could see them demanding adding ads to the videos / pages. YouTube is a business and expecting them to host and stream videos worldwide for free is unrealistic. This seems like they would have the right to run ads anyway so I'm not sure why they would need to force them to select that option. (I can also see blenders desire to not have ads but I don't think youtube is at fault for not wanting to actively wanting to lose money on their videos. If that is really the problem it might be interesting to have youtube open a paid option for the cretors to pay for the service and not have any ads / user tracking stuff.)
Some companies that make copyright claims against YouTube videos request a cut of the ad revenue instead of having the videos taken down. I'm pretty sure that "monetized content" is Google's term for these videos that you upload and Google has decided you don't really own.
Is such a requirement in YouTube's terms of usage?
If yes, YouTube should have notified the affected channels first and ask them to change their settings or leave.
If yes, YouTube should have notified the affected channels first and ask them to change their settings or leave.
Yes, but they might get more money cold-sending monetization contracts a la those junk letters you get that say "SECOND NOTICE PAST DUE" on them.
It was in another trending post
https://torrentfreak.com/youtubes-piracy-filter-blocks-mit-c...
Basically, overzealous automatic piracy filters
Basically, overzealous automatic piracy filters
It was allegedly an overzealous automatic filter. As of late, Youtube has been behaving very aggressively towards any content creators who were, in YT's eyes, earning YT less-than-optimal money. Even if it is just an automatic filter in so many cases, their apparent complete apathy regarding the issue is very telling...
Bogus copyright claims
Okay, the Youtube/political angle of this is pretty horrendous and is deserving of discussion. But they pose a question about Peertube: how well does it hold?
In my limited testing from central San Francisco: it doesn't. Which makes me sad. Anybody have any insight into the pros/cons/ultimate performance/scalability limits for Peertube? Is the flakiness a function of immature technology or inviable technology?
In my limited testing from central San Francisco: it doesn't. Which makes me sad. Anybody have any insight into the pros/cons/ultimate performance/scalability limits for Peertube? Is the flakiness a function of immature technology or inviable technology?
For video serving encoding technology is good enough that we don't actually have to shovel that much data over the network. Latency is the biggest issue from what I understand.
Most of the amazing work google has done to make youtube fast is the magic behind google's omni-presence established world wide. Like they say in the post they have one datacenter in the EU serving this content. If they used AWS and spun up an instance serving content from every AWS region available the performance would be much better.
I was able to play the video but it lagged a bit to get started until I was able to find peers near me. This is likely a latency thing to the remote host in the EU.
PeerTube should scale much more easily than a conventional site because viewers, I assume, are peers of the content. More people looking at something means more people serving that content. The biggest con is that if you're viewing the video you're shoveling data to other viewers which, previously, you've likely not done.
I hope more people try things like this tech.
Most of the amazing work google has done to make youtube fast is the magic behind google's omni-presence established world wide. Like they say in the post they have one datacenter in the EU serving this content. If they used AWS and spun up an instance serving content from every AWS region available the performance would be much better.
I was able to play the video but it lagged a bit to get started until I was able to find peers near me. This is likely a latency thing to the remote host in the EU.
PeerTube should scale much more easily than a conventional site because viewers, I assume, are peers of the content. More people looking at something means more people serving that content. The biggest con is that if you're viewing the video you're shoveling data to other viewers which, previously, you've likely not done.
I hope more people try things like this tech.
>If they used AWS and spun up an instance serving content from every AWS region available the performance would be much better.
This actually could be done by anyone since PeerTube uses WebTorrent. Good samaritans could run a webtorrent-hybrid or WebTorrent Desktop instance and help serve those videos from their home connection or personal server(s).
This actually could be done by anyone since PeerTube uses WebTorrent. Good samaritans could run a webtorrent-hybrid or WebTorrent Desktop instance and help serve those videos from their home connection or personal server(s).
> help serve those videos from their home connection
While it's what we usually do when we uses BitTorrent and similar protocols, this is ignoring network topology, and somewhat inefficient. Of course, theoretically not the global bandwidth, but the pipes congestion.
Home connections are not connected to the internet, but to a service provider connected to the internet. Home are behind distribution trees connected to the internet graph.
Nothing forces ISPs to optimize routing flow inside their AS to distribute content. Could be at their root tree. How can we expect people with capped upload speed and high latency to IX servers, while some global CDNs are already closer to homes on ISPs regional level PoP?
And besides, traffic shaping, throttling, protocol blocking on private ISP infrastructure is now unregulated in some parts of the world. Massive outbound traffic could unbalance their (massively inbound) peering contracts, this is a threat.
The principles of free, open and decentralized internet do not necessarily apply to users of ISP infrastructure.
While it's what we usually do when we uses BitTorrent and similar protocols, this is ignoring network topology, and somewhat inefficient. Of course, theoretically not the global bandwidth, but the pipes congestion.
Home connections are not connected to the internet, but to a service provider connected to the internet. Home are behind distribution trees connected to the internet graph.
Nothing forces ISPs to optimize routing flow inside their AS to distribute content. Could be at their root tree. How can we expect people with capped upload speed and high latency to IX servers, while some global CDNs are already closer to homes on ISPs regional level PoP?
And besides, traffic shaping, throttling, protocol blocking on private ISP infrastructure is now unregulated in some parts of the world. Massive outbound traffic could unbalance their (massively inbound) peering contracts, this is a threat.
The principles of free, open and decentralized internet do not necessarily apply to users of ISP infrastructure.
They mention they're hosting it in a EU datacenter, that may be your issue. It works fine from France, actually appreaciably snappier than Youtube. I think Google has many mirroring servers everywhere to mitigate the issue.
All Blender needs to do is to publish a few videos that offend everyone, and get demonetized. Problem solved!
Does PeerTube provide a way to have any server other than the originating instance act as a tracker/seed? The readme diagrams make it seem like the long-term video hosting is still effectively centralized, with only metadata being federated.
It is planned.
just host your code on github, tutorials on youtube, chats on slack, forums on reddit...
YouPHPtube could be a nice option for the Blender Foundation if they don't mind paying for their bandwidth usage. It is pretty easy to install (the hard way). I'm going to make a docker container for it and the encoder sometime. One advantage is that it can use amazon s3 storage and there are instructions for setting up live streaming. AFAIK, peer tube doesn't have a live stream capability (though I realize that the blender foundation may never use such a feature).
I was interested. Then I looked at github
> This Software must be used for Good, never Evil. It is expressly forbidden to use YouPHPTube to build porn sites, violence, racism or anything else that affects human integrity or denigrates the image of anyone.
Sigh.
> This Software must be used for Good, never Evil. It is expressly forbidden to use YouPHPTube to build porn sites, violence, racism or anything else that affects human integrity or denigrates the image of anyone.
Sigh.
Wait, is it really solved now? I get the following error for many videos:
> This video contains content from BlenderFoundation. It is not available in your country.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kes2qmijy7w and all other videos in "Blender Fundamentals" playlist.
I'm located in Sweden.
> This video contains content from BlenderFoundation. It is not available in your country.
For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kes2qmijy7w and all other videos in "Blender Fundamentals" playlist.
I'm located in Sweden.
Same in the US.
Same error and message in Canada.
I would love to buy a preinstalled peertube instance on a Raspberry Pi and plug it in somewhere around the house.
From https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/...
> Please don't install PeerTube for production on a small device behind a low bandwidth connection (example: a Raspberry PI behind your ADSL link) because it could slow down the fediverse.
> Please don't install PeerTube for production on a small device behind a low bandwidth connection (example: a Raspberry PI behind your ADSL link) because it could slow down the fediverse.
I am looking for a technical explanation.
Would this be because of fear of establishing a precedence where if a lot of people did that you'd have a situation of a lot of leechers but few seeders.
If thats the case, its the same situation where you have a lot of users watching videos on a server. The server can limit membership to protect itself I suppose but a personal instance would be better then a user that just watches but does not contribute.
I suppose somebody could make a RPI client that becomes a member to one or more instances and just downloads. Just let the servers protect themselves by limiting use here and there.
Would this be because of fear of establishing a precedence where if a lot of people did that you'd have a situation of a lot of leechers but few seeders.
If thats the case, its the same situation where you have a lot of users watching videos on a server. The server can limit membership to protect itself I suppose but a personal instance would be better then a user that just watches but does not contribute.
I suppose somebody could make a RPI client that becomes a member to one or more instances and just downloads. Just let the servers protect themselves by limiting use here and there.
Direct link to blog post: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
I've been meaning to cancel for a while. Just got around to it and it felt amazing.
Blender videos are back: https://twitter.com/blender_org/status/1009358627839381505
Read about the chain of coincidences, bad UIs, wrong error messages, ignorant support desks and being non-standard here:
https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
I've noticed a trend on reddit to link outside of YT for short clips. I hope the pace picks up, I get the impression that YT is actively hostile to a lot of content
One of the huge problems with YouTube etc is the centralised nature means normal methods of telling good from bad are limited.
Recently the Peppa Pig shock videos thread started up again. As a parent it does worry me - but if we had to visit "grot-peppa-porn-1234.com" before viewing the video instead of choosing "bbc.com" I think managing the problem would be easier.
So, peertube is nice. Perhaps it's not the right solution still?
Recently the Peppa Pig shock videos thread started up again. As a parent it does worry me - but if we had to visit "grot-peppa-porn-1234.com" before viewing the video instead of choosing "bbc.com" I think managing the problem would be easier.
So, peertube is nice. Perhaps it's not the right solution still?
Excellent performance on all videos but one (Elephants Dream). That video hangs forever strangely reporting a total length of 10:50:04 in the lower left corner, that is, over 10 hours which is of course incorrect. Maybe a problem during upload?
All other videos start immediately even in full HD; so far I've watched a couple in their entirety with no glitches at all.
Reminder that PeerTube is doing a crowdfunding to develop the project further. Available at https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
The most shocking thing to me is that YouTube didnt't have the presience to handle Blender with better care..
Does this have anything to do with Google removing their "Don't be evil" trademark? Maybe huh?
Wow this really cool! Never saw PeerTube before. It's UI is far away better than Youtube!
PeerTube is using WebTorrent for videos. This means user's IPs are exposed to other users. Wouldn't it be possible to abuse this to track others by associating IPs with types of videos/content viewed?
YOUTUBE STOP PAYING MILLIONS OF CREATORS WITH SMALL INCOME BY THE FACE, BY THE FACE. WITH YOUR CHANGES NOW ADD METHODS OF PAYMENT, AND NOW YOU WANT TO REDUCE CHARGES.
Well if that is not to take advantage of the user. What is it?
Well if that is not to take advantage of the user. What is it?
They should publish everything on IPFS too, maybe even peertube should support IPFS.
Great. Just when my daughter has installed Blender to learn 3D modelling.
As someone who recently started learning Blender I recommend the YouTube channel Blender Guru. They guy makes great tutorials for both beginners and more advanced users.
I will second Blender Guru as an excellent resource! (Might want to increase the playback speed though--his videos take a while...)
Thanks!
You can view all the PeerTube-hosted videos in your browser at https://video.blender.org
The only difference is you don't go through YouTube.
The only difference is you don't go through YouTube.
Look up the "Humane Rigging" set of tutorials. Its the best Blender tutorial I've found so far, but it only covers rigging. (To an insane level of detail, but its ONLY about rigging).
I learned Blender almost a decade ago. Instrumental in my learning the application was competing in informal speed-modeling contests.
They were conducted from an IRC channel, and ranged from 5 minutes to a couple hours, with random-ish topics: a chair, a pair of binoculars, boombox, etc.
I am fairly certain this experience also contributed to well-developed spatial skills (mentally representing and manipulating objects). I hope you encourage your daughter along this path. :)
They were conducted from an IRC channel, and ranged from 5 minutes to a couple hours, with random-ish topics: a chair, a pair of binoculars, boombox, etc.
I am fairly certain this experience also contributed to well-developed spatial skills (mentally representing and manipulating objects). I hope you encourage your daughter along this path. :)
There are so many more blender tutorials out there.
I can't wait for a real competitor to YouTube to pop up.
Cool.
I'm curious what YouTube's real numbers are for YouTube profitability. Are these channels at such high subscriber rates that they're cutting into YouTube's ability to sustain themselves?
They recently demonetized all of the Salad Fingers videos, causing David Firth to remove all those videos from YouTube and only allowing them to Patreon subscribers via Vimeo.
I hope this pushes towards more independent, distributed toob sites. YouTube is simply too big a monolith.
They recently demonetized all of the Salad Fingers videos, causing David Firth to remove all those videos from YouTube and only allowing them to Patreon subscribers via Vimeo.
I hope this pushes towards more independent, distributed toob sites. YouTube is simply too big a monolith.
I think that the single search box with consistent UX is the killer feature. Subscription is too, in another way. Alternatives need to address these; I believe federated video services / toobs are the only way to aim for the first. Subscriptions should be replaced with RSS.
I stopped using the YouTube site long ago. I only subscribe via Feedly/RSS and watch the videos I want directly with 99% no ads even without an adblocker via the embeded video player.
You can also use a local podcatcher like gPodder to automatically download the videos.
Where do the creators you follow host their videos?
Not op, but op may be using the Youtube Subscription RSS feed. Go to https://www.youtube.com/subscription_manager and scroll to the bottom. You should see a section labeled "Export to RSS readers".
Oh wow, how have I never noticed that.
In fact there are individual channel feeds (https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=<>) and this is a wrapper around that. That's great!
I currently receive email notifications for subscriptions, but I've noticed I don't always get emails for all the uploads of some of those channels. A direct RSS feed should solve that problem too.
In fact there are individual channel feeds (https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=<>) and this is a wrapper around that. That's great!
I currently receive email notifications for subscriptions, but I've noticed I don't always get emails for all the uploads of some of those channels. A direct RSS feed should solve that problem too.
They're all still on YouTube, but I just subscribe to the YouTube rss feed. Also since they don't get ad revenue, I pay ~$15/month to assorted creators.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I am curious, too.
The blog post mentions 1M views [1]. At €1 per TB [2], and assuming a video of 100Mb which are roughly 1GB, you end up with 1000TB a €1000.
Even if Google just pays a fraction like $0.1 per TB, they still have to earn $100 somewhere else to break even.
[1]: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
[2]: https://www.hetzner.com/cloud
The blog post mentions 1M views [1]. At €1 per TB [2], and assuming a video of 100Mb which are roughly 1GB, you end up with 1000TB a €1000.
Even if Google just pays a fraction like $0.1 per TB, they still have to earn $100 somewhere else to break even.
[1]: https://www.blender.org/media-exposure/youtube-blocks-blende...
[2]: https://www.hetzner.com/cloud
> Even if Google just pays a fraction like $0.1 per TB, they still have to earn $100 somewhere else to break even.
1. The bad press generated is easily worth more than $100.
2. Youtube exercises the option recommend other videos. Blender gave them 1M opportunities to attract attention to other videos that are monetized.
3. Blender's videos were probably much larger than 100MB. I remember watching several that were over 30mins.
1. The bad press generated is easily worth more than $100.
2. Youtube exercises the option recommend other videos. Blender gave them 1M opportunities to attract attention to other videos that are monetized.
3. Blender's videos were probably much larger than 100MB. I remember watching several that were over 30mins.
That's a very good question. Supposing YT is still unprofitable after all these years, isn't that evidence of dumping? In other words, evidence of Google/Alphabet illegally pushing in to take over this market?
There's a bunch of Salad Fingers videos on Youtube.
faladSingers(1)
Influencers MUST CO-OPERATE!
PeerTube is awesome and needs more visibility. Coincidentally, they're having a fundraiser right now to be able to ship a 1.0, so if you like the idea of a federated, decentralized YouTube alternative that can also talk to other ActivityPub software like Mastodon etc. consider donating[1].
1 - https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
1 - https://www.kisskissbankbank.com/en/projects/peertube-a-free...
And you should also consider contributing!
It’s Typescript on client and server.
https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube
It’s Typescript on client and server.
https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube
You know, the value proposition of YouTube Red/Premium (extra features in the Android app, no ads on any device) is just starting to blossom as YouTube alienates a major portion of their most productive creators, in an apparent bid to build yet another TV channel nobody wants to watch or pay for.
Url changed from https://twitter.com/blender_org/status/1009077941676986368, which points to this.
They should just seed a nice torrent for all their videos.
:-/
[0] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1009218500383080449
[1] https://twitter.com/app4soft/status/1009208842494906368
[2] https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/675
Uhh... it's a streaming video site. It's not going to be viewable in a terminal-based browser, regardless of whether it uses JS or not.
I'm not clear if they want that because of bogus copyright claims, EU legislation etc, or just because they favour making money over not making money?
Edit: Either way looking for alternatives seems like a good idea.