• lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s like [checks notes] 2 more video platforms on the internet!

      No reason these people can’t post on those, or host their own.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unless they want it to be possible that people see their content.

        Let’s assume that if you share a YouTube video, you get a 1% click through to people watching the video. If you share the same video the same way, but hosted on your own platform, it will drop to .0001%. It’s not viable. People will watch YouTube. They won’t watch on random other platforms.

        • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Unless they want it to be possible that people see their content.

          That’s what the airwaves are for.

          But no, really, Youtube is neither that open nor that essential that the people not there are Somehow Invisible on the Internet. And even if that was somehow the case, you actually don’t need to upload video, you can just use a normal youtube account to comment and link your content wherever relevant “conversations” lead there.

          • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes, it absolutely is that dominant.

            And no, there’s no possibility whatsoever that linking to content in the comments will result in any traffic whatsoever, even if you didn’t get banned immediately. That’s not how people use the internet.

            Network effect is a massive problem and platforms who leverage network effect need to be held to different standards.

            • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              and platforms who leverage network effect need to be held to different standards

              Then do so. Come on. It’s 2024.

              Until something is seriously done, being able to at least go elsewhere has to be and is the rational option that is left.

              • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                There is no “elsewhere” that is remotely viable. That’s the entire point.

                The only rational option is YouTube because there is no path to succeeding anywhere else. Trying any other platform after being kicked off YouTube cannot be rational because it cannot succeed.

                • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I mean , not with that attitude certainly. And dog that doesn’t bark doesn’t eat.

                  But if you want to be self-defeatist, you do you. I’d thought half the point you were even here, in a platform that is not GAFAM, was that you weren’t.

                  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    That’s not the discussion.

                    It’s whether the literal only possible way for a small creator to theoretically make successful content should be allowed to control the entirety of video content on the planet with their censorship.

                    Making content that you want people to watch that can’t go on YouTube is well past irrational. It’s full on delusion. Pretending that they don’t have a monopoly or that literally any class of legal speech they restrict isn’t automatically, in every possible situation, abuse of their monopoly position is nonsense.

                    There is no attitude capable of making it possible to get videos actually distributed anywhere but YouTube. It cannot be done. You’re better off getting your investment in cash and lighting it on fire.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Compelling argument.

      I will just go and do a quick search to find plenty of alternative hosting platforms and choose to use one of them to immediately distribute video content and nullify your only point.

      Youtube only maintains a monopoly if people choose to use the platform. Alternatives exist. Self hosting exists. Doing something more productive than posting “content” online exists. Lets not forget about the film industry.

      • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Having a website people can theoretically watch your video on isn’t distribution.

        People watching your video is distribution.

        There’s nowhere but YouTube where you can host video and have actual meaningful viewership be a possibility. YouTube has an absolute, complete dominance of the video space.