←back to thread

111 points rabinovich | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
whatsupdog ◴[] No.45813593[source]
How many such stories we have to come across before we as a community come together? Apple and Google's monopolies have to be broken. It's insane that your livelihood depends upon the mercy of one organization.
replies(7): >>45813707 #>>45813738 #>>45813747 #>>45813783 #>>45813826 #>>45814517 #>>45814521 #
MostlyStable ◴[] No.45813707[source]
It's not really that simple. There are already alternative video hosting and streaming sites. In the article it mentions that this creator is already using one in fact. The reason why youtube is such a big deal is because of it's market dominance. Everyone watches there, and therefore it is valuable. "breaking it up" just turns it into another one of the many many competitors that already exist.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Youtube's behavior here. It's bad and shouldn't just be shrugged off. I just don't think that shouting "monopoly!" actually fixes anything. If you want a video hosting and streaming site that has less market dominance and better moderation policies, that already exists. Everyone is free to use them.

replies(3): >>45813771 #>>45813800 #>>45813966 #
1. everforward ◴[] No.45813966[source]
There's a sort of circular problem where basically every creator's videos are on YouTube, but many don't replicate their videos to other video platforms. Viewers won't leave in part because other sites lack content, creators won't cross-post because other sites lack viewers.

Some of that would be alleviated if we separated hosting/serving videos from the frontend and indexing, perhaps with a radio-like agreement on what the host gets paid for serving the video to a customer of the frontend. Frontend/index makes money off ads, and then pays some of that back to the host. Creators could in theory be paid by the video hosts, since views make the host money.

Then heavy handed moderation could be a disadvantage then, because they would be lacking content other sites have (though some of that content would be distasteful enough most frontends would ban it).