Qutting YouTube

[Myrtonos]

You must have missed where it says Blogger below my handle. click on my signature and have a read of my blog found on this website. Again, I do not care and I do not see why anyone would care where their content is being hosted at. The world is flat when it comes to matters such as this. 

I think I didn't notice the blogger title or didn't know what it meant, and I certainly didn't notice the link in your signature.

Okay. However, if those are problems, one could always post videos to YouTube, close their comment section, and embed the videos in a forum like this. There are ways around both of those problems, if indeed they are problems, that cost nothing. 

That doesn't address the other problems with YouTube, which is basically the online equivalent of a nanny state.

My guess would be because they [clause containing obscenity not quoted] wanted everyone to be able to enjoy their site. Charging a fee, no matter how low you think it might be, can and does exclude people from your sites experience. It could also be they were competing against other video sharing sites and their model of free access won out in the end. 

What other video sharing sites, other than google video, already existed before YouTube? Where was YouTube founded, and how liberal are most of the people's of that area, compared to the global English community, and most mainland Europeans? Charging a fee would mostly exclude those who aren't serious about complying with applicable law, that must be a good thing. If one is serious about observing applicable law, along with terms of use and community guidelines, one is more likely to join without perceiving a waste of money.

And again, I already noted that free access, in addition to enable people to enjoy the site without fearing the consequences of an illegal act, comes at the expense of running at a possibly huge loss.

What I meant is that that vlogger has posted in these forums, and that (as she has said elsewhere) has had issues with the content to noise ratio on YT, and yet she doesn't like blocking people or removing comments.

You obviously did not read the section from me you quoted above this. I already acknowledged this point, pointed out that a few of the people I follow on YouTube did the same, yet none of them have quit. You would think that if you actually believed in this plan, you would contact these contributors and try your idea out. In order for your idea to succeed, you will need several of the big names from YouTube to follow you.

I'm not sure what "did the same" means in this case, same as that well known Danish blogger?

Is there anyone here registered on Something Awful?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I think I didn't notice the blogger title or didn't know what it meant, and I certainly didn't notice the link in your signature.

Well now you know that at least one person does not care if they live next to the place that is hosting their content. Take that however you want.

That doesn't address the other problems with YouTube, which is basically the online equivalent of a nanny state.

I do not think you know what a nanny state is if you believe YouTube resembles one. Furthermore, it addressed the two problems you brought up before without having to create a new website that charges people.

What other video sharing sites, other than google video, already existed before YouTube? Where was YouTube founded, and how liberal are most of the people's of that area, compared to the global English community, and most mainland Europeans? Charging a fee would mostly exclude those who aren't serious about complying with applicable law, that must be a good thing. If one is serious about observing applicable law, along with terms of use and community guidelines, one is more likely to join without perceiving a waste of money.

I am running hypotheticals by you. I do not know the exact reasons behind YouTube choosing free access. Those are two possibilities that they could have followed. Whatever the reason, it has been successful and I believe that free access would be a large part of that. Furthermore, you are still assuming that people have the funds to waste on pointless things, such as online videos. You are correct that it might encourage people that are serious, but it is possible that the vast majority of people using a site like YouTube do it because it is a time waster and they are not serious about it.

And again, I already noted that free access, in addition to enable people to enjoy the site without fearing the consequences of an illegal act, comes at the expense of running at a possibly huge loss.

Yet somehow Google is still making money of YouTube.

I'm not sure what "did the same" means in this case, same as that well known Danish blogger?

By “did the same”, I mean a few of the channels on YouTube I am subscribed to created videos complaining about the updates and trolls associated with YouTube. My point is that none of them quit. Has this Danish blogger (if she ever was a contributor on YouTube) quit? What I am suggesting is if you want to start a site like the one you are suggesting, you need to start by stealing large contributors away from YouTube and convincing them that your website is superior.

Is there anyone here registered on Something Awful?

Why would someone be foolish enough to pay to use a web forum?

 

[Myrtonos]

I do not think you know what a nanny state is if you believe YouTube resembles one. Furthermore, it addressed the two problems you brought up before without having to create a new website that charges people.

What two problems, loss leadership certainly isn't one of them, nor is enforcing applicable law.

I am running hypotheticals by you. I do not know the exact reasons behind YouTube choosing free access. Those are two possibilities that they could have followed. Whatever the reason, it has been successful and I believe that free access would be a large part of that. Furthermore, you are still assuming that people have the funds to waste on pointless things, such as online videos. You are correct that it might encourage people that are serious, but it is possible that the vast majority of people using a site like YouTube do it because it is a time waster and they are not serious about it.

I'm not sure what possibilities you mean, you say it has been sucessful, but as I said, they chose free access and now they are paying for that decision. Would you in all honesty call a video hosting site for which the bandwidth bills cost more than it earns, and dominated by time wasters who aren't serivous about it successful?

And again, I already noted that free access, in addition to enable people to enjoy the site without fearing the consequences of an illegal act, comes at the expense of running at a possibly huge loss.

Yet somehow Google is still making money of YouTube.

Yet somehow the bandwidth bills cost more than YouTube earns. Paid creation of each account and additional channel is the only solution to all the problems I mentioned. Other solutions to some of the problems don't solve others.

I mean a few of the channels on YouTube I am subscribed to created videos complaining about the updates and trolls associated with YouTube. My point is that none of them quit. Has this Danish blogger (if she ever was a contributor on YouTube) quit? What I am suggesting is if you want to start a site like the one you are suggesting, you need to start by stealing large contributors away from YouTube and convincing them that your website is superior.

As far as I know, this Danish vlogger is still going, she has three channels and plenty of videos on her best known one.

Is there anyone here registered on Something Awful?

Why would someone be foolish enough to pay to use a web forum?

Howcome, given this question, something awful is the ninth largest forum on the internet? If something awful can do it, why not appyl the same thing to a video hosting site?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What two problems, loss leadership certainly isn't one of them, nor is enforcing applicable law.

You stated:

Myrtonos[/url]"]Reasons would include higher content to noise ratio, and not wanting to use google+ at all, not even the comment section for YouTube.

I suggested solutions to those problems that do not involve charging people, you then jumped to claiming YouTube is a nanny state (an unsupported claim) and are now claiming two new problems (loss of leadership and enforcing applicable laws). It seems YouTube has always enforced the laws and I am not sure what you mean by loss of leadership.

I'm not sure what possibilities you mean, you say it has been sucessful, but as I said, they chose free access and now they are paying for that decision. Would you in all honesty call a video hosting site for which the bandwidth bills cost more than it earns, and dominated by time wasters who aren't serivous about it successful?

Yes. That is a success. It is not my site, but I enjoy using it, thus successful in my eyes. Furthermore, a site where I would have to pay to post videos does not seem like something I would be interested in at all.

Yet somehow the bandwidth bills cost more than YouTube earns. Paid creation of each account and additional channel is the only solution to all the problems I mentioned. Other solutions to some of the problems don't solve others.

If this is true, then you need to capitalize on your idea. Stop wasting time here and start working on your idea. You can create a Kickstarted and people will actually give you money if they think your idea is worthy enough for it.

As far as I know, this Danish vlogger is still going, she has three channels and plenty of videos on her best known one.

So apparently, even though she has complained about the changes, she has not done anything drastic, like quitting YouTube. You have to ask yourself, why is that?

Howcome, given this question, something awful is the ninth largest forum on the internet? If something awful can do it, why not appyl the same thing to a video hosting site?

I do not know why it is the ninth largest, perhaps because they have advertisements. Again, if you truly believe this idea is viable, start a Kickstarter for it and get it off the ground. You can contact all the people upset with YouTube and lead a mass exodus from it to your new site.

 

[Myrtonos]

I suggested solutions to those problems that do not involve charging people, you then jumped to claiming YouTube is a nanny state (an unsupported claim) and are now claiming two new problems (loss of leadership and enforcing applicable laws). It seems YouTube has always enforced the laws and I am not sure what you mean by loss of leadership.

I did not invent the term loss leader, someone stated earlier in this thread that YouTube costs more to run than it earns, and I've encountered many copyright violations there.

I'm not sure what possibilities you mean, you say it has been sucessful, but as I said, they chose free access and now they are paying for that decision. Would you in all honesty call a video hosting site for which the bandwidth bills cost more than it earns, and dominated by time wasters who aren't serivous about it successful?

Yes. That is a success. It is not my site, but I enjoy using it, thus successful in my eyes. Furthermore, a site where I would have to pay to post videos does not seem like something I would be interested in at all.

What if it's only a one time fee per account and additional channel, you wouldn't necessarily pay to post each video. Try telling this same quote to Richard "Lowtax" who runs something awful and see what response you get.

If this is true, then you need to capitalize on your idea. Stop wasting time here and start working on your idea. You can create a Kickstarted and people will actually give you money if they think your idea is worthy enough for it.

I hope that someone will take up my idea and found the site, I don't have the resources.

As far as I know, this Danish vlogger is still going, she has three channels and plenty of videos on her best known one.

So apparently, even though she has complained about the changes, she has not done anything drastic, like quitting YouTube. You have to ask yourself, why is that?

She did not complain at all about the changes, but about all the trolling, such and claiming in at least one YT comment that serious discussion is rare.

I do not know why it is the ninth largest, perhaps because they have advertisements. Again, if you truly believe this idea is viable, start a Kickstarter for it and get it off the ground. You can contact all the people upset with YouTube and lead a mass exodus from it to your new site.

They do have advertisements, but logged in patrons see fewer of them. I have actually cross posted this thread on several forums. Part of the inspiration came from this thread.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I did not invent the term loss leader, someone stated earlier in this thread that YouTube costs more to run than it earns, and I've encountered many copyright violations there.

I am guessing that English is not your native tongue. “Loss of leadership” is not the same as “loss leader”. I know you did not come up with the term loss leader, I have read this thread. In addition, perhaps charging for membership would cut down on copyright violations, but YouTube has its own way of handling those claims that does not involve charging money to its users. You also still have not supported your claim that YouTube resembles a nanny state.

What if it's only a one time fee per account and additional channel, you wouldn't necessarily pay to post each video. Try telling this same quote to Richard "Lowtax" who runs something awful and see what response you get.

Again, I would not be interested. Why would I want to waste my money on something like that (no matter how little) when YouTube already exists? If you invite him to this forum, I would gladly tell him the same thing. Just because he found people that are willing to pay for his forum does not mean I am.

I hope that someone will take up my idea and found the site, I don't have the resources.

To bad.

She did not complain at all about the changes, but about all the trolling, such and claiming in at least one YT comment that serious discussion is rare.

She is correct. Serious discussion on YouTube is rare. Do you think charging people to join a forum will change that? Because, she could always join a forum like this and embed her videos in a thread in order to raise the amount of meaningful comments. However, now that YouTube has done away with its 500-character limit (which I believe is the real reason for the rarity of serious discussions) serious conversation should be easier to come by.

They do have advertisements, but logged in patrons see fewer of them. I have actually cross posted this thread on several forums. Part of the inspiration came from this thread.

I meant advertisements for people to use their website. That could be a key to why it is so large.

 

[Myrtonos]

I did not invent the term loss leader, someone stated earlier in this thread that YouTube costs more to run than it earns, and I've encountered many copyright violations there.

I am guessing that English is not your native tongue. “Loss of leadership” is not the same as “loss leader”. I know you did not come up with the term loss leader, I have read this thread. In addition, perhaps charging for membership would cut down on copyright violations, but YouTube has its own way of handling those claims that does not involve charging money to its users. You also still have not supported your claim that YouTube resembles a nanny state.

See this post, someone asked me if I had heard the term, I have not, I was born and grew up in Australia, so yes I am writing in my native language. How does YouTube do this? I have seen many copyright violating videos, many of which have sat there for a long time without being taken down, look up the name of a famous song and you'll see.

What if it's only a one time fee per account and additional channel, you wouldn't necessarily pay to post each video. Try telling this same quote to Richard "Lowtax" who runs something awful and see what response you get.

Again, I would not be interested. Why would I want to waste my money on something like that (no matter how little) when YouTube already exists? If you invite him to this forum, I would gladly tell him the same thing. Just because he found people that are willing to pay for his forum does not mean I am.

If you look at it as if YouTube did not exist, would you bother paying a one time fee for permission to host videos?

She is correct. Serious discussion on YouTube is rare. Do you think charging people to join a forum will change that? Because, she could always join a forum like this and embed her videos in a thread in order to raise the amount of meaningful comments. However, now that YouTube has done away with its 500-character limit (which I believe is the real reason for the rarity of serious discussions) serious conversation should be easier to come by.

She has been on this forum, and has embeded some of her videos, yet she still enables comments on her videos, and often reminds people about civilty, and warns them, and so on. Unfortunately for her, there are a lot more people there than on this site, may of them have no videos on their channels. So why did YouTube have the limit in the first place, how would making the comments section more open encourage free discussion?

True or false? Those who are serious about commenting properly are more likely to be prepared to pay for an account, juding from one reason the SA furoms do this, it seems that it would help.

They do have advertisements, but logged in patrons see fewer of them. I have actually cross posted this thread on several forums. Part of the inspiration came from this thread.

I meant advertisements for people to use their website. That could be a key to why it is so large.

I don't know whether they have advertised, but the fact is that it is only a one time fee per accont, of only USD9.95.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:facepalm:

Since English is your native tongue the problem must be that you are skimming my posts. That is a sign that you are not interested in having a real discussion and I grow tired of repressing myself.

 

[Myrtonos]

It was someone else, not you or me, that first used the term loss leader in this thread. I don't see what skimming posts has to do with the use of a term like loss leader.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

YouTube streamlines comment management system

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Myrtonos]

No matter what YouTube does with the content management, they are still paying for providing fee account and additional channel creation.