• PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
    link
    English
    82 months ago

    “Absolute evil” is a bit of a stretch, but it’s YouTube/Google’s fault (by closing off and centralizing their video platform) that it is impossible to go elsewhere for videos.

    • @riodoro1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      122 months ago

      Google just made it really hard for creators to go anywhere else and created a monopoly of sorts.

      Literally every corporation does or attempts to do the same thing. What we would need is to revive the politicians that broke up rockefellers empire and tell them to do the same with apple, microsoft, google, meta, amazon and every tech „giant”.

      No more providing every imaginable service under one company.

      • @gndagreborn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        72 months ago

        I agree that YouTube is Google monopoly, but I I’ve been wondering… They handle massive amounts of data. Would any other non-trillion dollar company be even capable of storing, processing, and presenting videos on the same scale, with the same quality, and with what is arguably very good latency world wide?

        What could competitors do to beat Google without hemorrhaging their money just trying the manage the overhead?

        • @RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 months ago

          If they use the same monetization no probably not, other platforms that do work like that (like Odysee) have some limits, for example Odysee doesn’t transcode the videos and has a limit of 16mbits and 15gb total. It may be possible for platforms like Vimeo or Nebula as they have a relatively high subscriber count compared to their size and accordingly more money available per person, or something like peertube (or general torrent based) could work if the workload is split between instances and users, but peertube has no monetization so it’s problematic to maintain

            • @lightnsfw@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              02 months ago

              My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.

              • TheRealKuni
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 months ago

                My opinion is content creators could host their own content and then links to these could be aggregated on sites like lemmy/reddit/twitter/etc for the purpose of discovery. This way one site doesn’t get to control the narrative by manipulating what videos people see and creators can monetize their content however they like.

                People are free to do this. It turns out hosting video content is expensive. Most YouTubers aren’t exactly rolling in cash. The ones everyone knows, sure, they’re making a living from it now. But that also wouldn’t have been possible for most of them starting out.

                Like it or not, YouTube provides something important to the internet: a place for content creators to get started with comparatively little upfront cost.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
        link
        English
        72 months ago

        Literally every corporation does or attempts to do the same thing.

        Exactly. Every single corporation is evil and should be dismantled 🔥🔥🔥. This is just one of a thousand reasons to do so.

    • @tyler@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      72 months ago

      I don’t really understand how that’s YouTube’s fault. They created a good product so people used it and there were no alternatives when it got shit. There’s no lock in. They don’t force you off the platform if you post elsewhere (like twitch did). You can literally post the same video to as many platforms as you want. Sites like Instagram and GitHub have more lock in than YouTube does.

      • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        They created a good product so people used it and there were no alternatives when it got shit.

        They created an inherently centralizing implementation of a video sharing platform. Even if it was done with good intentions (which it wasn’t, it was some capitalist’s hustle, and its social importance is a side effect), we should basically always condemn centralizing implementations of a given technology because they reinforce existing power structures regardless of the intentions of their creators.

        It’s their fault because they’re a corporation that does what corporations do. Even when corporations try to do right by the world (which is an extremely generous appraisal of YouTube’s existence), they still manage to create centralizing technologies that ultimately serve to reinforce their existing power, because that’s all they can do. Otherwise, they would have set themselves up as a non-profit or some other type of organization. I refuse to accept the notion of a good corporation.

        There’s no lock in. They don’t force you off the platform if you post elsewhere (like twitch did).

        That’s a good point, but while there isn’t a de jure lock-in for creators, there is a de facto lock-in that prevents them from migrating elsewhere. Namely, that YouTube is a centralized, proprietary service, which can’t be accessed from other services.

    • Lightor
      link
      fedilink
      62 months ago

      I mean this is every ecosystem though right? YouTube, Apple, Steam, everyone tries their best to do it because they want you locked in.