- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685
EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says
Hello,
Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.
Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore.
If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..
This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.
I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don’t abuse them since the number is really low.
Start asking your favourite content creators to post on PeerTube.
And how are they going to make a living to keep producing videos?
I’d say ask them to join Nebula.
That depends. If they only make a living with YT ads, then it’s going to be hard.
About half the ads I see on YouTube are already within the videos they post. I wonder what the overall ratio is of YouTube ad revenue versus in-video ad revenue.
Are you talking about sponsors? Because yes, that has nothing to do with YT ads.
I guess I forgot things like Patreon which could be a valid option. Although I’m neither a fan of subscribing to specific creators nor am I particularly fond of Patreon.
With Nebula my perception is that I pay a monthly fee and they can figure out who gets what depending on whose videos I watched. I don’t need to be particular in my action on who to support.
Nebula is a good option, but now you’ve created a paywall. Now only people who can afford it, can watch the content and what is to keep Nebula from upping the price of the subscription?
If ads is out of the question, then content creators need to use sponsors and patrons, if they want to make a living.
An advantage of funding things via a collective like Nebula as opposed to each individual creator managing their own patrons is that new creators can start making bigger, more expensive projects quicker. Even established creators have this advantage, they can take bigger risks on bigger projects with the safety net of a share of the nebula pie.
I don’t think a project like The Prince would exist without Nebula, for example.
FYI, Nebula isn’t a collective: https://scribe.rip/@cameron-paul/who-actually-owns-nebula-952a1c12d9c0
People want a fantasy world where all the main content is free and two or three rich sponsors support the creator by sponsoring little extras only available to Patreon supporters. The ends will never meet in the middle on that. It’s a fantasy where people get what they want for free because someone else pays for it. Won’t work. Get out your cash, kids. Cancel your Netflix and put the money into Nebula.
Don’t shift the blame on “people wants” as if they’re owed by the people. Most people dont even ask for whatever content that is pushed out. And what’s more content creator is just a glorified term for online digital panhandlers. And they frame it as if viewers are meant to owe them something all while contributing as little to their efforts that amounts to no significance as possible. Imagine paying someone to make a facial reaction and talking for a bit everytime you passed a panhandler and they call themselves a content creator. It’s bogus way to frame or even justify that especially considering they get payed far larger sums comparison to people who actully work for a living while dodging the taxes. And is unlikely any such platform as youtube as well as its big panhandlers are struggling with finances. Youtube gets $15 billion dollars a year in ad revenue and hey greedily continue the push for more ads. And the digital panhandlers calling themselves content creators can make more money in a week than the typical wage slave can in a year.
Nebula is cool and all, but at the end of the day, it’s still a commercial platform, and those do tend to enshittify and depend a lot on externalities.
As creators grow more dependent on Nebula, Sam and the team of original Nebula creators can wield more power and change the rules.
They already dictate the kind of content that is allowed - for example, Second Thought, one of the original creators behind Nebula, was asked to leave as he doesn’t agree to change public stance on Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he is pro-Palestine). This has suddenly left him without a source of revenue necessary for the production to expand, and has put him into debt.
Solution? Probably independent sponsorships that would go both on YouTube and PeerTube videos. Or a creator reward system like in Lbry/Odysee. Something that would allow to reward creators without going full commercial.
Remember when people posted on YouTube for fun? It’s only when it became a viable business that the platform turned to shit.
Ah yes, youtube now is just one big ad and sponsorship cesspool flooded with clickbait and misinformation and with highly privacy invasive protocol. Its a souless capitalisic corporate machine. I dont know why people would still use it. Just let youtube die.
All the people I watch on youtube make the majority of their money on patreon or twitch. Youtube is way too heavy handed with demonitization and copyright strikes to be a trutsworthy income source.
Paying Nebula subscriber here 🙋♂️
I can’t stand hearing people whine about wanting everything for free and how DARE people try to make a living so they can eat in between making videos!!!
Same way they do on YT. Viewer contributions + sponsor spots + merch. They only miss out on ad revenue (which I concede is not insignificant).
Nebula is ok but I took 1 look at their privacy policy and passed.
I just want the videos no creator makes money on. I expect thats about 50% at least. Let’s start there. Put them in the Library of Congress and YouTube will be free to enshittify themselves into oblivion without complaint.
or odysee ig but i cannot find a good peertube instance i can post in
What are your criteria for a good instance? I host one myself, so genuinely curious.
The age limit yeah I think the peertube instances on their site follow the gdpr
Yea, a minimum of 13 years old is pretty common. Also something I agree with, as I don’t think kids under 13 should be on social media.
talking about most of them have a minimum of 16 but 13 is fair honestly its everywhere but i am 14
It’s 13 years on mine, if interested: peertube.wtf
Yeah i already signed up but my videos require approval i registered before this reply
They have been approved :)
And while we’re at it, stop calling them ‘content creators’
EDIT: to clarify, my stance on this is that ‘content creator’ devalues the human endeavour behind a piece of work (or content, if you will). Instead it’s just slop for the machine, and who cares what it is as long as it gets numbers, right?
What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?
Do we need a general term? Someone who uploads their videos to a video platform is probably a “video producer”.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creator
So what should we say when discussing people who make video, audio, text media?
I see their point about “content”, where, on YouTube, for example, it devalues the videos as subordinate to YouTube as a platform, but I think as people use the word “content” it loses that connotation.
video → video producer
audio → musician, podcaster, … depending on the type of audio
text media → author
So what word should we use when describing all of those people in one group?
Time wasters.
Well, we start by referring ta work not as “content”, but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.
… Which is a type of content.
There’s a lot of content that doesn’t fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.
Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣
His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it’s called content for a reason.
I’ll take the name Content Creator over Influencer any day.
Why? What else would we call them?
Entertainers. Show women/men.
Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn’t call an entertainer. That’s why “content creator” is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno “medical” exploitation film
Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.
Entertainer isn’t a label I’d necessarily apply to educational content, for example.
Then call them educators, or presenters… teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
Yes it’s much better to use
“comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls”
… than…
“content creators”.
What do you have against creators as a label? I don’t really see these difference myself.
Or just call them Content creators, recognize they don’t really produce value for anyone but YT’s grab on the attention economy and start living in the real world.
To answer the “why”, it’s because the word “content” is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons… it’s all just this generic “content” slop that’s just there to feed the machine
What a strange opinion.
It’s not that strange, I have a friend who literally said the same thing today in reference to one of his favourite channels shutting down. He preferred to call the stuff on this channel art, rather than content. I agree with the person above too, the term has always bugged me. It makes it sound so mass produced, like your job is to just produce meaningless “content” for people to mindlessly consume. And to be honest, that’s exactly what the mainstream YouTube culture is about.
I agree with this a lot. I really do not like the term “content”. It is like going to a recipe for some “slop”, like using a term that is just a catch all for everything tossed on a plate.
Art is great. Movies, music are also fine terms. And so is simply saying they made a video. Watering it all down to the term “content” is just so boring and mind numbing.
Not really. The term “content creator” is corporate speak. Google’s ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It’s not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation’s binary world view.
Call them what they truely are. Digital panhandlers
That’s pretty insulting, a lot of what YouTube creators do takes real skill, and it’s a full time job for many.