Qutting YouTube

[Myrtonos]

I tired to post here but it didn't show up anyway:
Apparently, the YouTube commenting system has changed such as to integrate it with Google+,the existing notification system has been replaced by the google+ notification system.
While I have never experienced it myself, I've just heard that everytime one logs in one is asked which google account one wants to use, Google+ is taking over, I thus stopped commenting on that site.
I plan to close my YT account at the end of the year, it was created before google bought YouTube.
I wonder if anyone could just start a new vlog hosting site for those who no longer want to use YouTube. This new vlog service will hopefully have a consesus based commuinty guideline making process and more of a hirachy of user rights. User should be required to buy accounts, the account creation fees paying for the hosting. Users should also expect to pay more if they want additional user rights including uploading videos longer than a certain limit. Additional fees would apply to subscribing to revenue earing channels.
The site should also have a proper dispute resolution system.

 

[Gnug215]

Hi, and welcome to the site.

Apologies for making you post twice, but we have our spam filter set to max, so that ANYone posting for the first time has to get explicit approval from a mod.
Said approval has now been given.


Regarding your comment... yeah, YouTube comments is a mess now. I really don't know what they're thinking, other than probably desperately trying to get people to use Google+, rather than Facebook, or something like that.

As for making an alternative site, well, I actually assume there already are some alternatives out there, but I don't really know. But making a new site like that would be a huge undertaking.

 

[Myrtonos]

I didn't realise this site had such a filter, and didn't understand why my post wasn't visible. There may be some "alternatives" out there but not quite like the one I'm suggesting.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That will never work. One of the reasons why YouTube became so popular, was not simply because it was easy to use, but because it was free. And why would you pay when you can get it for free?
Secondly you would be making competition with an established giant, YouTube, a dominating website that when started ran up a large debt.

 

[Prolescum]

Your idea was tried by another (who ran back to YouTube after pilfering the new site's coffers).
Not sure how many would be willing to take another gamble on a startup like that.

That said, it's not that hard to set up a clone, just expensive. Better off starting up a blog and direct your video users there for discussion. Actually, we have a shameless self-promotion sub forum that can suffice as an alternative to my earlier suggestion.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

What was that other site? That YouTube is free is probably a significant factor in the mess made in the comments, and also their terms of use aren't widely adheard to, particularly in regard to copyright. If creating an account costs a bit of money, than submitting such videos would be a waste of money, people would be less likel[y to treat it as a dumping ground. It also means that not all revenue is generated from advertising, thus meaning that the site is not an advertising service, and that ads that help pay for the hosting don't need to be displayed to logged in users.
For some background, this actually exists on the Something Awful forums, see the account creation page, and it is the ninth largest internet forum. Remember that the price of an account starts at just USD9.95 and is not an ongoing cost.

 

[Prolescum]

I don't remember the name. Its chief thief was that troglodyte TheAmazingAtheist.

Who are you trying to convince?
I don't really care about YouTube, its denizens, or how its comments function; If you believe you can do it and want to do it, go and do it.
Best of luck to you.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

Another innovative idea for this site, is to set it up so that even if a user chooses a pen name as their username, their full legal name (that name specified under legal name) will still be viewable to lawyers. This means more accountability for ones actions while still respecting privacy.

 

[Prolescum]

Right.
That isn't innovative, it's naïve.
Firstly, one can easily use any name. How would you know the names are real? How would you check their validity? How would you enforce such a requirement?
Secondly, none of that bullshit matters as, unless one is technically minded and can get around it, you would've logged IP addresses which would be handed over to authorities on request. Certainly not lawyers.
I don't think you've really thought the idea through...

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

Yes one can use any username as long as it is appropriate, but one must provide one's legal name to the authorities. How do facebook and google+ enfgorce their real names policy?
My idea would be for users to pay more if specifiyng a free email address as opposed to a non-free one, upon account creation.

 

[Prolescum]

I didn't say username.
I asked how you'd enforce valid names; what's to stop me signing up as Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair? Neither Google or Facebook have a way around that to my knowledge. If they do, I suspect it'd be a game of cat and mouse anyway, and I doubt you'd have the resources to deal with it effectively in any case.
The rest of your response is just an unfeasible pipe dream, so I don't think it really needs to be addressed.
As I say, good luck with it - you'll need it.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

Like I said, make the base price higher for those registering with free email addresses, such as hotmail or gmail. There are some websites do require users to IP based email addresses. One could tell the authrities whether they know anyone else who already uses the site.

 

[Prolescum]

So only those with their own domains are considered trustworthy and receive a discounted price?
What about those who don't vlog but want to comment? Oh yes, they have to pay to subscribe to a channel.
Given the insulting and financial criteria, you've just lost a huge swathe of your prospective userbase. Well done.

You'll likely ignore my practical criticisms, but hey, your money is yours to do with as you will.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

The current comment system on YouTube is not nightmarish impossible to handle. Even if you couldn't comment at all, I wouldn't consider it worthy to fork my cash on a monthly basis to have it.
And certainly trying to enforce me to use my real name on the internet is a very dickish move. If YouTube tried to enforce it I would close my account, and I always use a fake name on any website that asks for my real name. I don't use my name because I want to keep my life separate from the internet, but then again I am from time when people were more sensible with putting out their data on the web. I already think your idea is a bad idea, and this just makes me less interested.
But who are we kidding, you are just blowing out air. To say that you would this or that is one thing, to actually do it is another different beast altogether, and it is allot more complicated than you presume or you are even capable of, even if you had the drive.

 

[Myrtonos]

So only those with their own domains are considered trustworthy and receive a discounted price?
What about those who don't vlog but want to comment? Oh yes, they have to pay to subscribe to a channel.
Given the insulting and financial criteria, you've just lost a huge swathe of your prospective userbase. Well done.

You'll likely ignore my practical criticisms, but hey, your money is yours to do with as you will.

Sent from my tepholome

Don't you know that one does not need one's own domain to have an IP based email, one may have an ISP based one, or a work or university one, even if one does not have one's own domain. Subscription fees to channels would only apply if the host is monetising off them, the idea is so that ads alongside videos don't need to be displayed to subscribers, and to keep those channels from serving (largely) as advertising services. Does anyone realise that this is how it basically was before the internet? Still today, one pays to subscribe to offline radio stations (such as 3RRR here in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), and to cable and staillite TV.

The current comment system on YouTube is not nightmarish impossible to handle. Even if you couldn't comment at all, I wouldn't consider it worthy to fork my cash on a monthly basis to have it.
And certainly trying to enforce me to use my real name on the internet is a very dickish move. If YouTube tried to enforce it I would close my account, and I always use a fake name on any website that asks for my real name. I don't use my name because I want to keep my life separate from the internet, but then again I am from time when people were more sensible with putting out their data on the web. I already think your idea is a bad idea, and this just makes me less interested.
But who are we kidding, you are just blowing out air. To say that you would this or that is one thing, to actually do it is another different beast altogether, and it is allot more complicated than you presume or you are even capable of, even if you had the drive.

Once again, there would be no reoccuring charges except to subscribe to channels. I also don't use my real name for the reason you mentinoned, but here is a question, do you provide it in emails? Would you have any less of a problem providing it only to the authorities than disclosing it publically?

 

[IBSpify]

The current free alternatives to Youtube (such as Dailymotion) can't ever really pretend to compete with youtube, yet you find it viable to try and compete with youtubes free design with a site which contains a signup fee?

Yea good luck with that.

 

[Myrtonos]

If subscribtion to certain radio stations, and Cable and Sattilite TV is not free, why should subscription to online revenue earning channels? If logged in users have to pay for the hosting, then submitting videos in volation of terms of use, etc, is a waste of money, so people are less likely to do it. How does YouTube genrate revenue, as far as I know, it's all from advertising. If logged in users have to pay for the hosting, then only a certain portion of revenue is generated from advertising, and the main ads thus shouldn't need to be displayed to logged in users. Similarly, if one monetises off one's videos, all the revenue is generated from advertising and subscription is still free. If one charges a fee on subscription, only a certain portion of the reveune is generated from advertising, and ads alongside videos wouldn't need to displayed to subscribers.

 

[Prolescum]

Don't you know that one does not need one's own domain to have an IP based email, one may have an ISP based one, or a work or university one, even if one does not have one's own domain.

Given that I run a few websites (including this one) and mail servers, and that there's no such thing as an IP based email, it's probably safe to say I am familiar with how the web works.
You may have convinced yourself of the value of your proposition, but you need more than buzzwords and poorly understood acronyms to persuade those reading this thread.

For instance, many people set up free email accounts because they don't want to, can't, or shouldn't use work/university emails for unofficial matters, let alone that gmail et al have features ISPs/work/universities aren't interested in offering (threading, IMAP, large storage, for example). To discriminate on that basis is proverbial suicide and clearly shows the chasm between your understanding and the reality of the proposition.

Subscription fees to channels would only apply if the host is monetising off them, the idea is so that ads alongside videos don't need to be displayed to subscribers, and to keep those channels from serving (largely) as advertising services.

I think you're deluding yourself, mate. The subscription model doesn't work in most instances on the internet, and it is unlikely that it will pay for hosting such a bandwidth-intensive site such as this.
Again, bear in mind that I run a web server now and speak from direct experience. Also, there's really no value added, by subscribing, to the user besides no ads (which one can simply circumvent using ad blockers). Which again leads to a reduction in prospective income for your site.

Does anyone realise that this is how it basically was before the internet?

Yes, and the operative word there is before. I think king Canute wants to have a word with you.

Still today, one pays to subscribe to offline radio stations (such as 3RRR here in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia), and to cable and staillite TV.

Make that argument in a business plan and you'll be laughed right out of the bank. It'd be like trying to convince a greengrocer that a banana is a watermelon.

By the way, YouTube, to this day, costs more to run than it earns. It is subsidised. It would be prudent of you to consider, or perhaps even research, why this is the case, seeing as you seem intent upon ignoring (rather than really addressing) the criticisms in this thread.

Sent from my tepholome

 

[Myrtonos]

Given that I run a few websites (including this one) and mail servers, and that there's no such thing as an IP based email, it's probably safe to say I am familiar with how the web works.
You may have convinced yourself of the value of your proposition, but you need more than buzzwords and poorly understood acronyms to persuade those reading this thread.

Yes there is, ISPs do give email addresses to their subscribers just as they give IP addresses.

For instance, many people set up free email accounts because they don't want to, can't, or shouldn't use work/university emails for unofficial matters, let alone that gmail et al have features ISPs/work/universities aren't interested in offering (threading, IMAP, large storage, for example). To discriminate on that basis is proverbial suicide and clearly shows the chasm between your understanding and the reality of the proposition.

The features that gmail has are not a reason to specify it upon account creation, also I never said that changing one's email address afterwards would incur extra charge, only using a free email address initially would incur that charge.

Again, bear in mind that I run a web server now and speak from direct experience. Also, there's really no value added, by subscribing, to the user besides no ads (which one can simply circumvent using ad blockers). Which again leads to a reduction in prospective income for your site.

No, subscription would also add the same values as it normally does, both online and off.

Make that argument in a business plan and you'll be laughed right out of the bank. It'd be like trying to convince a greengrocer that a banana is a watermelon.

By the way, YouTube, to this day, costs more to run than it earns. It is subsidised. It would be prudent of you to consider, or perhaps even research, why this is the case, seeing as you seem intent upon ignoring (rather than really addressing) the criticisms in this thread.

I didn't realise that YouTube costs more to run than it earns. Still what is the difference between subscribing to an online channel and subscribing to something offline?

 

[Prolescum]

1. IP stands for internet protocol. There's no such thing as an IP based email. An email address given to you by your ISP is still a free email account. Are you employing someone to check the addresses or using a bot? What about small, relatively unknown ISPs? How many are there worldwide? What if one is on a spam farm list? The ISP may be completely innocent, and most of its users too; how do you account for that?
2. So one can just arbitrarily change the email address... you've just given us a way to circumvent the system. Thanks.
3. Delusional. If you aren't the WSJ or similar, your subscription model simply won't do what you require it to do.
4. The difference is that you're asking for a continuous payment (subscription) for amateur work when there are many already successful sites that offer the same for free, offer better incentives for content creators, and don't require such risible entry-level user limitations. It borders on insane.


All that said, you clearly don't want to hear what I have to say, so there's little point in responding further.

Sent from my tepholome