Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus
-
It’s bad for the environment to take uneccessary flights and it sets a bad example.
Lol… People got on vacations every day, I don’t see normies cry about it.
In fact telling a normie not to fly, will make it act indignant
-
It’s not an alternative business model. It’s the same business model on an alternative platform.
And is that alternative platform in the room with us now?
-
If you’re banned, nothing
We’re not talking about me, we’re talking about Steve.
But until then, YT is where the audience is.
And it’s where the audience will remain until someone does something about it.
A creator needs a large audience on a platform to make it worthwhile for them while an audience
No shit. He already has the audience. He can bring them with him to the new platform.
You’re still just stating a bunch of obvious stuff without providing any explanation why PeerTube isn’t viable.
There’s no need to be such an asshole, alright?
We’re not talking about me, we’re talking about Steve.
That was the colloquial ‘you’ that is commonly used to refer to general people and Steve hasn’t been banned either so it still remains a hypothetical situation.
And it’s where the audience will remain until someone does something about it.
This, I agree with. However, one creator isn’t enough.
You’re still just stating a bunch of obvious stuff without providing any explanation why PeerTube isn’t viable.
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation. Peertube or any other alternative site are only a solution when Steve or any other creator has no option and still a bad one for an individual creator (including their production team since we’re obviously being pedantic). Short of them getting banned, it doesn’t make sense for one creator because they will lose a sizeable portion of their audience while doing so. Most people can’t be bothered to change platform if they’re only losing 1 of their 20+ favourite creators, especially if the alternatives aren’t as good by one aspect or another (not criticising Peertube specifically here since I’ve never used it, but I have tried a couple of others in the past and found the UI to be lacking or there simply wasn’t anything I wanted to watch). So, since I apparently have to spell it out despite it also being obvious, the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
-
It’s bad for the environment to take uneccessary flights and it sets a bad example.
Lmfao good lord. Get real
-
If you’re banned, nothing
We’re not talking about me, we’re talking about Steve.
But until then, YT is where the audience is.
And it’s where the audience will remain until someone does something about it.
A creator needs a large audience on a platform to make it worthwhile for them while an audience
No shit. He already has the audience. He can bring them with him to the new platform.
You’re still just stating a bunch of obvious stuff without providing any explanation why PeerTube isn’t viable.
lol doesn’t even know what the royal “you” is, something tells me you’re not equipped for this (or any) discussion
-
No insults intended. Apologies if it came off that way.
The market share dynamics, UI/UX issues (average person finds federation to be a difficult concept) and lack of an “easy to pick up” monetisation system make PeerTube non-viable as a sole distribution source for a commercial (or even part-time income) channel.
I would argue the market share difference is by the far the biggest factor (other factors can arguably be accounted for with varying degree of success).
average person finds federation to be a difficult concept
Personally, I don’t find this to be true, and/or it doesn’t really matter for the signup process, especially for Peertube where viewers usually aren’t expected to have accounts.
All your other points are spot on though
-
The hell does Bloomberg have to do with gaming videos
It is an AI GPU smuggling video. Bloomberg made their own but got basically nothing. Their journalists sucked. Then GamersNexus went to China and got tonnes of insider knowledge and footage.
-
I would support GN opening a PeerTube channel (and I would watch their PeerTube channel), I just don’t think it’s viable to completely move off YT at this point.
Regarding monetisation, we of course will have to radically change internet monetisation models with a bigger focus on scheduled donations (for the platform and content creators) and a perks system for incentives and perhaps a bit torrent-enhanced style distribution system. But this is a long term thing, there is the here and now.
Maybe Nebula as a mirror? It’s subscription-based, but I rather put my money there and watch the content ad-free than giving Google my money or ad views.
Legal Eagle, Practical Engineering and some others are putting their video a bit early there compared to their YouTube channels as an incentive to subscribe, and you can often get the yearly subscription 50% off.
-
There’s no need to be such an asshole, alright?
We’re not talking about me, we’re talking about Steve.
That was the colloquial ‘you’ that is commonly used to refer to general people and Steve hasn’t been banned either so it still remains a hypothetical situation.
And it’s where the audience will remain until someone does something about it.
This, I agree with. However, one creator isn’t enough.
You’re still just stating a bunch of obvious stuff without providing any explanation why PeerTube isn’t viable.
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation. Peertube or any other alternative site are only a solution when Steve or any other creator has no option and still a bad one for an individual creator (including their production team since we’re obviously being pedantic). Short of them getting banned, it doesn’t make sense for one creator because they will lose a sizeable portion of their audience while doing so. Most people can’t be bothered to change platform if they’re only losing 1 of their 20+ favourite creators, especially if the alternatives aren’t as good by one aspect or another (not criticising Peertube specifically here since I’ve never used it, but I have tried a couple of others in the past and found the UI to be lacking or there simply wasn’t anything I wanted to watch). So, since I apparently have to spell it out despite it also being obvious, the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation.
It’s absolutely not.
the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
No it’s not better because it’s not true. Steve already has a massive audience. He already has several dozen other social media platforms he can use to promote a new space. There are a dozen other ways he can make money. It’s not unrealistic.
-
I just don’t think it’s viable to completely move off YT at this point.
And yet you haven’t provided any justification for this position.
Steve has millions of loyal followers. He has channel sponsors. He has his own personal products. He probably has thousands of channel donors.
Would he take a substantial hit to his revenue? Absolutely. But to say its “not viable” is preposterous.
At the very least he could begin mirroring his channel there.
Let’s agree to disagree. I did provide some pertinent points. I think we have far more that we agree on than what we disagree on.
At the very least he could begin mirroring his channel there.
Definitely. But if GN kept their YT channel, they could also promote PeerTube.
See there are some benefits to keeping the YT channel.
-
average person finds federation to be a difficult concept
Personally, I don’t find this to be true, and/or it doesn’t really matter for the signup process, especially for Peertube where viewers usually aren’t expected to have accounts.
All your other points are spot on though
Fair point.
This is just my anecdotal experience describing federation.
Although to some degree it doesn’t actually matter. The on-boarding process shouldn’t even require understanding of federation and it should be just a feature of the platform (show, don’t tell).
-
Was it really neccessary to fly there?
This is one of those times where it’s entirely justified. Our local government (USA) is saying one thing about foreign lands, but reality is observably different. There’s no way to accomplish this kind of journalism without traveling to the place the administration is lying about.
-
I‘ll not take away the working person‘s well earned vacation once or twice a year, especially in a big country like the US (I generally understand that the attitude towards flying is different there).
But some dude who took a plane to yap in front of an office building? Nah.
-
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation.
It’s absolutely not.
the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
No it’s not better because it’s not true. Steve already has a massive audience. He already has several dozen other social media platforms he can use to promote a new space. There are a dozen other ways he can make money. It’s not unrealistic.
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him to that platform and stay on it solely for his videos. They won’t. A large chunk? Maybe. But not all of them. I’d say ~65% max, and that’s one hell of a hit to earnings if they’re ad-based. On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart. But you’re a Peertube stan and don’t care about those minor details so I’m sure it’ll be fine.
-
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him to that platform and stay on it solely for his videos. They won’t. A large chunk? Maybe. But not all of them. I’d say ~65% max, and that’s one hell of a hit to earnings if they’re ad-based. On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart. But you’re a Peertube stan and don’t care about those minor details so I’m sure it’ll be fine.
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart
Continuing to build your business on the rented land of a monopoly that doesn’t give a single shit about you isn’t smart either.
-
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart
Continuing to build your business on the rented land of a monopoly that doesn’t give a single shit about you isn’t smart either.
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
So we’ve got to that part of the discussion, have we? The part where the pieces line up too much for comfort so you deny what you were saying. Cool.
Continuing to contribute to a monopoly isn’t smart either.
This is something I actually agree with but short of a mass exodus of big creators, I see it being too small to matter, only serving to cripple the creators who jump ship.
-
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
So we’ve got to that part of the discussion, have we? The part where the pieces line up too much for comfort so you deny what you were saying. Cool.
Continuing to contribute to a monopoly isn’t smart either.
This is something I actually agree with but short of a mass exodus of big creators, I see it being too small to matter, only serving to cripple the creators who jump ship.
We’ve gotten to the part of the conversation where you run out of legitimate arguments and resort to strawmanning.
-
I don’t usually watch gamers Nexus stuff, I find it to be a bit dense for casual watching. It’s accurate as all hell, as far as I’m concerned… They know their shit and they research the crap out of whatever they’re covering; this both makes them awesome, but adds to the density of their content.
I also have immense respect for them because they’ll call shit out like this, and just give the finger to any possible repercussions. They’re legally in the clear as far as I’m concerned, they’re hyper careful about that kind of thing. But that doesn’t mean that Google is willing to host them while they do shit that makes Google’s advertising partners grumpy; and I assume Bloomberg, or a company affiliated with Bloomberg runs ads on YouTube/Google/whatever.
They’re in a position where they have significant risk, and instead of tucking tail and doing what they’re told, they’re fighting, and pointing out the problem. They’re putting a spotlight on the fact that we all know, but nobody really mentions, that “good business” in the ad space, is to appease your advertisers as much as possible. Like it or not, Google is still, very much, an ad company. That’s how they started, that’s still a big part of the business. It’s why Google search is free. It’s why Gmail is free, and it’s why YouTube is free (almost all of these have paid options, but that’s not the focus right now).
So like it or not, Google’s in a pretty tough spot. I’m sure the views from GN drive some significant ad revenue, at the same time, in certain that the contracts for ads from Bloomberg and affiliates, are worth quite a bit as well. If they kick GN, then they lose ad revenue from any ads that would run on their videos in there future. If they don’t, they risk losing a potentially very valuable advertiser.
They’re stuck in the middle. I have no idea what they’re going to decide here.
I won’t blame Google either way. I’d like to see them standing up for GN, but I can see why they wouldn’t. They’ll have a stronger arm against GN than they would against Bloomberg, because, let’s face it, Bloomberg has more money to throw at lawyers and making legal issues for Google, than GN does.
I do, however, entirely blame Bloomberg in all of this. I’m certain that GN is using any footage insert fair use laws with proper attribution to the original source (though, I haven’t seen this video yet, nor the one in question. I just know GN well enough to know that the likelihood that they didn’t, is basically zero).
GN already has my trust for their integrity. I can’t say the same for Google, YouTube, and certainly not Bloomberg… Ha.
I will, of course, be looking more deeply into this later, and I will amend my viewpoint as information is uncovered. Until then, good luck GN. You guys are heros and legends. Never stop being exactly who you are.
I think you’re being too forgiving to Google, and also pointing at the wrong problem.
The central problem isn’t ad space, but the DMCA. It requires companies that host content the way YouTube does to have policies for DMCA takedown requests. Generally, this means removing content when they receive a request. The DMCA makes a form of compromise here, where hosting companies won’t be liable as long as they show they’re processing takedown requests in good faith.
This is exactly the same law in the US that comes into effect when your ISP gets a takedown notice. Your ISP isn’t liable as long as they pass that on to you and tell you to delete what you “stole”, etc.
The problem is partially Google’s implementation and partially the DMCA itself. To the best of my knowledge, the three strikes system isn’t something in the DMCA. That’s YouTube’s policy alone. ISPs generally don’t operate on a three strikes system–they might choose to, but they don’t have to.
The DMCA itself doesn’t have any kind of mechanism for pushing back against companies that send takedown notices abusively. This means companies setup an automated system that scans uploaded videos looking for anything they can claim is theirs and send a notice. That’s probably what Bloomberg did. These systems aren’t smart enough to distinguish fair use from not; they have zero incentive to even try something as simple as “a five second clip of our stuff in a 3 hour video is probably fair use”. The entire burden is placed on content creators to show they aren’t infringing.
Until the law is changed to deal with notices sent in bad faith, this sort of thing will continue. Naturally, companies like Disney and BMG yell bloody murder any time they even get a hint of Congress trying to do that.
All this is separate from YouTube’s own content ID automated system. That’s a whole different set of problems from the DMCA.
-
Hyperbolic title to be sure but I think it’s justified to point out Fuck Bloomberg.
THE NVIDIA AI GPU BLACK MARKET ｜ Investigating Smuggling, Corruption, & Governments : Gamers Nexus : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
NVIDIA (NVDA) GPUs have become so in-demand for so-called AI workloads that a black market has emerged around them. Where there's prohibition, there's...
Internet Archive (archive.org)
-
Hyperbolic title to be sure but I think it’s justified to point out Fuck Bloomberg.
I don’t see as much potential malice in Bloomberg as the conspiracy theories are saying, just normal every day malice of their legal department seeing their footage being used and suing to get money out of it. The news industry is particularly cutthroat now, so paying top buck for video exclusives probably makes them think they can demand cuts from channels like Steve’s. If it was pressure due to any one of the conspiracies being brought up, the opposition would be much more organized and not just coming from the legal department, and they wouldn’t be giving him an out by just saying he can pay a licensing fee to resolve the dispute.
