Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.
So? They're a business, what do you expect?
The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.
YouTube got to be YouTube because Google sank enormous amounts of money into it for no return for a decade. Indeed, YouTube probably still hasn't broken even if including those costs.
"Profit is inherently evil" is a difficult point of view to have on this venture captial forum.
Rent seeking is a form of making profit. So of course they are making a profit. The question is whether they are making a profit in order to fund their operations as was suggested by the person I was replying to, or if they are "rent seeking".
According to wikipedia "Rent-seeking is the effort to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating new wealth."
That is why I said they "at some point they decided to turn the screws and really ramp up advertising". The claim I am making is a direct reply to the person who said they are not rent seeking, they are merely seeking profit to fund their operations. I am making the claim that they have moved beyond that to seeking profit without creating additional value in their service.
Now one can argue whether or not I am correct, but what was never under question was whether or not they are making a profit. The only thing being questioned was the purpose and result of that profit seeking.
I do pay money for Nebula, because they seem like their hearts are in the right place. I pay about $60, 70 a month to various podcast and video creators directly.
I don't use adblock, vanced, and sponsorblock because I'm cheap. It's because I don't like what YouTube as a whole is doing with incentivising clickbait and maximising revenue above just being an unobtrusive platform.
I whitelist Alec at Technology Connections, Steve Mould, a couple of others, from the ad blocks, because they aren't on Nebula yet. They should be.
If the cost of a product exceeds its value to you, you just don’t buy it. It doesn’t mean you should get it for free.
If you really didn't like that, you'd stop watching YouTube.
Ideally, by decoupling these things from one another. There's no reason they'd have to be part of a single platform - for instance, a client (app or web) could fetch public 'likes' and/or comments referencing (or "annotating", per the relevant Web standards) a PeerTube video from Mastodon. This is already superior to what YT does.
If we ever get there, I suspect it'll be through a combo between a decentralized registry core and federated and commercial gateway system (similar to VPN or usenet providers). The biggest challenges are related to identity, moderation and abuse, while appealing to a mainstream audience.
"It's not the format, it's the business model."
When you'll understand that YouTube's monetization is the reason why it's so popular (because, as opposed to other services, it's self-sustaining and, most important, profitable FOR CREATORS publishing there), you'll be closer to your answer.
Competition died mostly because:
- They have shit user experience that's outright broken (I'm looking at you Nebula and your portrait locked tablet apps and broken TV apps).
- They don't earn enough to cover bandwidth and transcoding costs (bandwidth is VERY VERY expensive even in western world when you stream video at scale).
- They don't have a simple answer for creators uploading videos on how to earn money from their creations. YouTube makes it a click (and a die roll for random demonetizations). Others don't and add friction to users as well.
The reality is YouTube bleeds money like crazy. Pretty much only huge enterprises like Google can afford to run a service like YouTube.
You can try. Many have tried before and YouTube continues to be king for a reason.
Good luck!
if what you beleive in is prison to keep everyone safe, it may be exactly what's coming very fast at us if you haven't noticed.
How is it decided who removes it - who moderates the service?
Technically, how is it removed?