jfdbcv

You know they did that with video games too.. Should we do that here?

https://apnews.com/article/gaming-business-children-00db669d...

Isn't this comment quite reductive?

There are many reasons why there are two separate apps and not necessarily related to how addictive the algorithm is. The "source" you linked gives one such reason:

> Like other social media services in China, Douyin follows the censorship rules of the Chinese Communist Party. It conscientiously removes video pertaining to topics deemed sensitive or inflammatory by the party, although it has proved a little harder than text-based social media to control.

Also have you used Douyin? It's really feels like basically the same thing.

Personally I inject probes into my brain to measure the exact dopamine response every time I need to make a new purchase

...idk I think people just like premium phones, it's not that deep

> Secondly, I became convinced Trump had to be using some type of an advanced intuitive capacity, as, based on the information that would have been available to Trump at the time the decisions were made, I could not see any other way to explain how he’d made some of the choices he made. [0]

Why are you reading an unironic Donald Trump mega glazer?

[0]: https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/catalyst-events-and-the-t...

I think humans have a natural instinct to share what they find cool / interesting.

Before this was mostly done through in person communicate, now this is primarily done through smart phones.

You realize that it will only be replaced with something MORE addicting? People won't exactly start reading newspapers when Tik Tok dies..

Define learn.

Equity data usually represents a big part of compensation and is basically impossible to value objectively as there are too many factors at play.

> Yes, because YouTube is changing their stance between when a large part of the data was uploaded and now.

This is untrue. As there was significantly less users on Youtube early on, it's highly likely that most of their total content consists of recently uploaded videos. This becomes more and more true as time goes on.

> YouTube is practically holding an incredible amount of knowledge and information hostage to feed Google’s insatiable desire for profits.

Free storage of data uploaded by willing users = hosting the data hostage?

Huh?! You can sell your car, or take a loan against it. You can convert US dollars into your local currency.

Your individual data is worthless. Data is only worth something in aggregate.

TikTok absolutely is a competitor. I'm not sure why it has to host long form content for it to be considered a competitor.

If more people get their video entertainment from TikTok, then they watch YouTube less.

Most blatantly, YouTube literally launched shorts recently - an exact TikTok competitor clone.

TikTok.

Also - just because it doesn't have the content that you, personally, watch, does not make it not a competitor.

> A huge amount of videos on YouTube are created for their own sake, with no expectation of going viral or making money off them.

It's estimated that there are 1 billion YouTube videos, compared to 600k videos hosted by PeerTube. Thats a 4 order of magnitude difference. Saying that PeerTube can "fill this role" is an outrageous assumption about scaling.

tradeoff is harder access to liquidity -- would banks be willing to give as much credit without credibility?

Luckily, they can learn about it all for free, right here!

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-macr...

Statements like these make it hard not to discount the whole article:

> By their nature, fiat currencies are manipulatable.

Like it's some kind of big revelation, when it's basic AP macroeconomics monetary policy.

In the US, not having a credit card is horrible financial advice.

You're paying an additional 3% on all transactions, as that's the standard credit card processing fee.

You're also failing to build up your credit score, which is pretty important if you're ever looking to rent or buy a home.

Sorry, I realized I was wrong with my initial comment. It's actually a 4 party system: the content consumers + ad companies on one side, with the platform and content creators on the other.

But yes, I think we are in agreement overall. If the money can't flow in through ads, the consumers need to pay the platforms and creators directly.

Patreon = video consumer pays

Sponsers = another word for advertisers

Nebula = consumer pays again (similar to yt premium)

The only exceptions are merch and book sales, which only a small amount of big YouTubers have access to.

Wouldn't it be nice if you could pay a monthly subscription, and any video you viewed gave the creators a small fraction?

I do as well. I find the best way to do this is YT Premium.

> More than 90% of the content I watch on YouTube has been uploaded years ago, and was provided to YouTube FOR FREE by the "content creator".

Unfortunately, I don't think this is a normal usecase. The common default usecase is people are following large content creators and watch fairy modern videos.

Also, you're missing an important point. They are hosted and served for free, as well. While it's not that much cost to host and serve a single video, YT has to host and serve years and years of user generated content. You're paying for the fact that they don't have an aggressive retention policy and videos that old are indexed, stored and served, almost instantly.

> Now it’s all about profiteering.

Unfortunately, the people who make content need to eat too.

Demonization only exists because YouTube is beholden to advertisers. If most people subscribed, it wouldn't be a problem.

The lengths people will go to avoid paying content creators is pretty crazy.

I don't think Patreon is an effective solution. People only have a limited Patreon budget and I'm sure it skews towards large YouTubers and is pretty winner take all.

There's a three way ecosystem: the content creator, Google and the consumer. Money can only enter the system through either ads or premium subscriptions.

No, it's an extremely valid point. Government antitrust policy has been heavily shaped by Robert Bork's "The Antitrust Paradox" which proposes that antitrust law should only focus on consumer welfare rather than market structure or number of competitors.

The purpose of a 2x salary is to be able to achieve financial independence at a much earlier age and getting the freedom to retire anywhere you want in the world.

The long arm of EU overregulation and legislation extends throughout the region, though. (See: GDPR)

Isn't this overly simplistic and reductionist?

You're ignoring that many of the large American tech companies provide cloud platforms, which certainly fits the bill of "providing tools to manufacture stuff"

Needless pedanticism.