Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
The content isn’t on the competitions platform.
Hence we should have regulation that makes the content universally accessible.
YouTube Premium
- Thread starter Nitefly
- Start date
Hence we should have regulation that makes the content universally accessible.
You're clutching at straws. No one is forcing anything you're saying.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
All we need to do is make the content universally accessible. A little bit like federated access to social media posts. That way users aren’t locked into a particular platform as it’s enshitified.
Wait, who do you think is responsible for putting the content on a platform?
Are you suggesting that creators should be forced to put their own content everywhere? Who would even audit that?
"Hello, Mr Obscure channel about cardboard boxes with 7 subscribers.... we realise you haven't placed your video on all platforms... yes, a fine will be coming your way"
.... I think you must be trolling at this point
Wait until you hear what linear TV channels are doing. Or Streaming services for that matter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
The content isn’t on the competitors platforms because the viewers are all on YouTube. We need to get the viewers dispersed among multiple platforms so that YouTube can’t keep making conditions worse and prices higher.
It’s called competition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
Content should not be siloed..... I think you must be trolling at this point
Wait until you hear what linear TV channels are doing. Or Streaming services for that matter.
Look at music streaming as a way to do content properly.
Notice how there are many more competitors in the music streaming market precisely because none of them have a monopoly over the content.
Last edited:
YouTube doesn’t own the content on its platform.
Any no, not all music streaming services have access to the same content library. There is stuff in Spotify that isn’t on YouTube music and vice versa.
I think you fail to understand the costs involved in operating a service like YouTube.
The reason why competitors don’t exist is because they can’t get costs lower than YouTube so they offer a worse viewing experience. On the creator side the alternatives don’t offer the same revenue split as YouTube, it’s lower. Hence the audience and the content went to YouTube because it was the best for both parties.
Any no, not all music streaming services have access to the same content library. There is stuff in Spotify that isn’t on YouTube music and vice versa.
I think you fail to understand the costs involved in operating a service like YouTube.
The reason why competitors don’t exist is because they can’t get costs lower than YouTube so they offer a worse viewing experience. On the creator side the alternatives don’t offer the same revenue split as YouTube, it’s lower. Hence the audience and the content went to YouTube because it was the best for both parties.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
A few exclusives is fine, but YouTube basically has nothing but exclusive content you can’t get elsewhere. That puts YouTube in a very powerful position to be anticompetitive.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 5,845
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
I don’t get the resistance to wanting more competition!
Because there isn't any resistance the competition, the point was the content creators choose to upload to YouTube, it is what it is.
I will watch things on Nebula prior to YouTube, if the opportunity arises, and Nebula are gaining more and more content creators. So there's the competition, you just have to get creators to use it. (It's not a YouTube / Regulation problem.)
It's not a resistance to competition. If a better platform comes, people will move to it. It's that simple.
But your idea of expecting a creator to put their content on multiple sites is just silly - why would they want additional work? Where would they build a 'community'?
Even more so when it seems like it's mostly because you don't want to pay but you also don't want adverts.
But your idea of expecting a creator to put their content on multiple sites is just silly - why would they want additional work? Where would they build a 'community'?
Even more so when it seems like it's mostly because you don't want to pay but you also don't want adverts.
No one wants less competition, but what you are proposing isn’t competition.
What it comes down to is you think the internet should be free and there be no advertising.
You’ve claimed a few times that YouTube engages in anti competitive practices, I’ve asked you to explain what do and you’ve ignored me every time.
I don't know if it's that they are showing anti competitive practices, I think it's the fact that they have such an unsurmountable monopoly on the video platform sector, that they can simply do whatever they please, and people have no option but to accept whatever changes they implement, no matter how objectively bad it is.
I don't have huge qualms with the amount of ads, increasing or not. Like you say, they need to make money somehow, so I understand that. But it's the things like what I mentioned a few pages ago, of them removing the ability to order results by upload date. A perfectly good, working feature, taken away for no reason. Forcing the irrelevant algorithm results down your throat. Forcing shorts down your throat.
You have no idea what changes they will decide to make tomorrow, but you will simply have to accept it, with no say in the matter. If there was a viable competition, they would at least be forced to think twice about their decision, lest people jump ship. But they don't have competition, and honestly at this point, probably won't ever have any.
It's kind of like how Microsoft has (or had) a stangehold on the OS sector in the 90s and 2000s. If you wanted to game, or use certain programs, you had no option but to use Windows. Yes, there was Apple and Linux back then still, but the maturity was no way near what it is today. You weren't getting Photoshop on Linux. You're not getting 3DS Max on Linux or Mac OS, so if you're in an industry that requires those, you have no choice but to go Windows, and we all know what a shambles Windows 11 is turning out to be with all their AI garbage being forced down your throat, and having to sign in to use freaking MS Paint.
I don't have huge qualms with the amount of ads, increasing or not. Like you say, they need to make money somehow, so I understand that. But it's the things like what I mentioned a few pages ago, of them removing the ability to order results by upload date. A perfectly good, working feature, taken away for no reason. Forcing the irrelevant algorithm results down your throat. Forcing shorts down your throat.
You have no idea what changes they will decide to make tomorrow, but you will simply have to accept it, with no say in the matter. If there was a viable competition, they would at least be forced to think twice about their decision, lest people jump ship. But they don't have competition, and honestly at this point, probably won't ever have any.
It's kind of like how Microsoft has (or had) a stangehold on the OS sector in the 90s and 2000s. If you wanted to game, or use certain programs, you had no option but to use Windows. Yes, there was Apple and Linux back then still, but the maturity was no way near what it is today. You weren't getting Photoshop on Linux. You're not getting 3DS Max on Linux or Mac OS, so if you're in an industry that requires those, you have no choice but to go Windows, and we all know what a shambles Windows 11 is turning out to be with all their AI garbage being forced down your throat, and having to sign in to use freaking MS Paint.
Those things you mentioned aren’t anti-competitive though.
Microshaft is a false equivalence because they absolutely have been engaging in anti-competitive practices for the OS itself and then using it as a platform to lock you into the other services they offer.
MS have gone out out of their way to lock system integrators into MS windows and its wider product portfolio. They’ve been subject to various antitrust cases as a result.
Ironically, the stranglehold MS have over consumers is being eroded on the daily. Whether that Linux, MacOS, ipadOD, iOS, Android and ChromeOS etc. most of the people I know don’t have a windows based computer in their household anymore, it’s basically just the PC gamers that do. Everyone else is on Mac, ChromeOS or just use their phone or an iPad for everything.
You’re right that commercial is another matter.
Microshaft is a false equivalence because they absolutely have been engaging in anti-competitive practices for the OS itself and then using it as a platform to lock you into the other services they offer.
MS have gone out out of their way to lock system integrators into MS windows and its wider product portfolio. They’ve been subject to various antitrust cases as a result.
Ironically, the stranglehold MS have over consumers is being eroded on the daily. Whether that Linux, MacOS, ipadOD, iOS, Android and ChromeOS etc. most of the people I know don’t have a windows based computer in their household anymore, it’s basically just the PC gamers that do. Everyone else is on Mac, ChromeOS or just use their phone or an iPad for everything.
You’re right that commercial is another matter.