i'm so glad i never got into youtube. i would have been elated, started making money, and then had it all yanked away.
better to just start and stay on the bottom. i hope google gets wiped out by some kind of extremely specific virus someday. just gone. and the virus gives out its source code to everyone else, so they can use the few working parts.
Because we lobbied for it to force that to happen as part of structural relief or bankruptcy proceedings. It would at the very least help with all of the IoT bullshit.
Finding more about this thing through shitter is actually kind of weirdly insane. There's like actually some autist who cyber stalks youtubers and copyright strikes their stuff. On the other hand you're fricking moronic if you made your channel a fulltime job if you have less then 100k subs.
The internet is fricked. This is the kinda shit people told horror stories about 20 years ago when the worst thing you could get was a dickpic or a computer virus. There are discord chats full of dedicated autistic doxxers going through every keyword they can these days.
20 years ago we didn't have ecelebs. My sympathies to the guy, whoever he is, but "public entertainer on a website owned by someone else" is not the most stable job in the world.
Is that relevant? He's an entertainer - with all the problems of exposure and public opinion and stalkers that entails - operating on a site owned by an indifferent megacorp over which he has very little if any influence or control.
>My sympathies to the guy, whoever he is, but "public entertainer on a website owned by someone else" is not the most stable job in the world.
How does that justify ignoring asses who make it even more unstable?
Who said it did? Random crazies are not the problem, it's YouTube who's at fault, and it was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea to base your financial security on a "partnership" with them.
>and it was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea to base your financial security on a "partnership" with them.
Jeez, I wonder why all those people keep working with he one business who has basically monopoly on platforming and exposing to the mass your audio-visual talents. It's truly a wonder for the ages.
3 months ago
Anonymous
You're really barking up the wrong tree here. YouTube's monopoly is a bad thing. Working with them is a bad thing, for your financial security and for what remains of the internet at large. Of COURSE people fricking do it anyway, because the internet has become a company town. When YouTube tanks some dude's whole career because a moron he's never met harassed him with copyright claims, the important takeaway is that YouTube fricking sucks.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Everyone got the point five replies ago, anon.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>YouTube's monopoly is a bad thing. Working with them is a bad thing
Monopoly means THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE!
You are the one barking at the wrong tree, saying "it's a bad idea to rely on youtube". It's NOT their idea to begin with. stop trying to imply they have some sort of comeupance when youtube let them down. It was never on them.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>the important takeaway is that YouTube fricking sucks.
It's not a comeuppance you twat, it's a foreseeable consequence of going into that line of work. It will keep happening as long as YT maintains its pseudo-monopoly, which YT's content partners contribute to by working with YT, as do the consumers. These are practical facts, not moral judgements.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It's not a comeuppance
Then don't say stuff like "it was a bad idea putting their work on youtube" as if they had any kind of choice in the matter.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>which YT's content partners contribute to by working with YT, as do the consumers.
That's not how it works, anon. Users and consumers have basically no power to break a monopoly. See Boeing, whose series of failure might have put any normal company out of business a long time ago and yet, despite being only a duopoly.
The only way to break a monopoly is through direct government intervention to break it down.
There is realistically no ways for users and consumer to terminate a monopoly on their own.
3 months ago
Anonymous
YouTube's "monopoly" is based on the perception of its monopoly. Everyone uses YouTube, so if you want any exposure you have to use it too. It's not comparable to Boeing.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>YouTube's "monopoly" is based on the perception of its monopoly
It's not just a perception. It defacto give you the most exposure and it's not something the users can do anything about.
The only reason it might not be comparable to Boeing is because Boeing at least still has Airbus to compete with.
3 months ago
Anonymous
It functions like a monopoly, but it's a monopoly based on a perception. There's no significant barrier to using or creating other video sharing sites, other than the fact that everyone uses YouTube so it gives much more exposure. While any individual youtuber, other than one of the top successes, might feel they have no other choice, the problem is still within the scope of collective action. Boeing and Airbus have a duopoly because the enormous outlay and risks involved tend to drive smaller companies bankrupt, which is not a useful comparison.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>It functions like a monopoly, but it's a monopoly based on a perception.
It's really not.
A competitors would have to invest tons of cash in infrastructure and developing reach before it could even chip out Youtube.
the consumer are not left with a choice, there. There is really no other option than youtube and it is not the consumer that can actually change that on their own.
'Just don't use youtube" is not a valid strategy when there is no alternative.
3 months ago
Anonymous
There was for Twitch, remember Mixr?
That was backed by fricking Microsoft.
3 months ago
Anonymous
And it still wasn't enough. Kinda prove my point.
3 months ago
Anonymous
If it closed down for reasons other than bad market share, then possibly yes.
3 months ago
Anonymous
This. But then again, Cinemaphile is willing to bootlick and asskiss anyone and anything that takes their autism out on someone they slightly disagree with. We are quite vulnerable to propaganda.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>There's no significant barrier to using or creating other video sharing sites
Yes, there is. It's a load of cash to invest in to develop any service able to support hat youtube does with little chance of getting a rerun on investment before decades.
It's a huge factual barrier on which consumer can do nothing about.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Youtube's "Monopoly" is based on the fact that they're fricking massive and any other platform of that size would be a nightmare to maintain. Most smaller platforms are only able to operate because they're small. Youtube has Google paying the upfront costs.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>they're fricking massive >any other platform of that size >smaller platforms are only able to operate because they're small
Outlay costs scale better to size for video sharing than for aeroplane manufacturing, although naturally any brand new service would have to afford to operate at a loss for a while as YouTube did. Saying it can't be replaced by a peer competitor isn't the same as saying its monopoly can't be broken. I don't think it is going to be broken in the foreseeable future, but that's because the will isn't there, not the rather more stringent demands that forced Airbus to consolidate.
3 months ago
Anonymous
>based on the perception of its monopoly
No, it's based on the corporation having political and monetary control worldwide.
>Star Wars kid wasn't a professional celebrity.
Yeah, hence why he was an e-celeb.
Fun fact: He worked in an anti-bullying campaign because of the video's effect on his personal life, now works as a curator for a museum in his home city.
Also, aren't people generally in agreement the first proto e-celebs were Maddox and a few others? The pre youtube e-celebs were way smaller and made money via running their own sites
3 months ago
Anonymous
>Anti-bullying campaign
Do these ever do anything?
3 months ago
Anonymous
No, not at all
The anti bully lesson is to kick your bully's ass
3 months ago
Anonymous
That only really works if it's just one or two people. Any more than that and you just have to cultivate stoicism.
>My sympathies to the guy, whoever he is, but "public entertainer on a website owned by someone else" is not the most stable job in the world.
How does that justify ignoring asses who make it even more unstable?
>Missing the point this much
You are a dumb mother fricker if you honestly think risking your livelihood over an "I have pinyons" channel is a good way to make a living. Especially now where anything can get you cancelled, even on hearsay. Don't even need psychos from Egypt to do this. He could just be cancelled over the old edgelord shit he said and apologized for in the past (which let's be real here, no one is gonna care because your past online ALWAYS sticks to you no matter how you spin or explain it)
Say what you want about him but the guy that has been cyberstalking and copyright striking is the biggest moron here
Imagine 4 years of shitting on some eceleb instead of getting a job to make life in your thurd shitter world better
Honestly the closest competition to YouTube is tiktok, especially with all the phase to addictive short form videos. There's been other alternatives for years but most of them are unheard either for being foreign or too small to actually compete with YouTube (Dailymotion,IGTV,vevo,niconico etc)
All the other vid platforms could fuse together and still not be big enough. ppl use YT for being seen, otherwise they'd use something else to avoid copyright BS
Yea it's mainly for clout. It's less about actually creating content like it was back in early 2010's. That's why everyone does same shit like commentary videos
Isn't this the dude that screamed at and tried to cancel an autistic girl who was dying of cancer, because she made a video saying Hailey's On It would be the next Owl House? She was wrong of course, Hailey was actually funny.
Huh, recently saw a video on Smash Bandicoot after it wouldn't stop popping up in my feed. >Egyptian tard who makes FNF mashups >Joins Discord servers to spam Hypermuscle Donkey Kong x Ness porn, with the excuse being that's his religion >Growls and snorts at people explaining why he was banned(apparently that's an intimidation tactic Egyptian gangsters use) >Screeches about flying a helicopter to Japan to assassinate Sakurai for putting Min Min in Smash
With all those Discords homosexuals taunting him about telling the Cairo police on him, guess they didn't do it or it wouldn't have escalated to this.
Even better. I hate opening YouTube and seeing "Why [thing] was a underated masterpiece" in my feed constantly. It's blatant spam at this point like holy shit.
And no, I do not watch these kinds of videos and I did that thing where you press the three dots and click do not recommend. It doesn't work. I hate AI as much as the next guy but if it gets rid of these essay YouTubers then so be it.
Even better. I hate opening YouTube and seeing "Why [thing] was a underated masterpiece" in my feed constantly. It's blatant spam at this point like holy shit.
And no, I do not watch these kinds of videos and I did that thing where you press the three dots and click do not recommend. It doesn't work. I hate AI as much as the next guy but if it gets rid of these essay YouTubers then so be it.
That's what he gets for having opinions that I disagree with
Eceleb threads should be punishable by death
>light mode
gross
i'm so glad i never got into youtube. i would have been elated, started making money, and then had it all yanked away.
better to just start and stay on the bottom. i hope google gets wiped out by some kind of extremely specific virus someday. just gone. and the virus gives out its source code to everyone else, so they can use the few working parts.
That specific virus is called the government, anon.
Why would the government give out code anon?
Because we lobbied for it to force that to happen as part of structural relief or bankruptcy proceedings. It would at the very least help with all of the IoT bullshit.
To be fair, YouTube’s system is terrible and they only care about top creators.
The funny thing is that they won't even try fixing their system because they know that people don't have anywhere to go but Youtube.
The successful takeover and consolidation of the internet by a tiny handful of monolithic corporate interests is funny but not like "ha-ha" funny.
This. Why put any effort if you're the only option?
Should've used AI music
Don't worry, they will claim it. Even if you made 100% unique music, SOMEONE WITH MORE $$$ THAN YOU WILL CLAIM ITS THEIRS.
Dumb ass motherfricker shouldn't had bow down to the woke mob and destined himself from his old edgy videos
What happened?
Finding more about this thing through shitter is actually kind of weirdly insane. There's like actually some autist who cyber stalks youtubers and copyright strikes their stuff. On the other hand you're fricking moronic if you made your channel a fulltime job if you have less then 100k subs.
The internet is fricked. This is the kinda shit people told horror stories about 20 years ago when the worst thing you could get was a dickpic or a computer virus. There are discord chats full of dedicated autistic doxxers going through every keyword they can these days.
20 years ago we didn't have ecelebs. My sympathies to the guy, whoever he is, but "public entertainer on a website owned by someone else" is not the most stable job in the world.
If you make any presence on the internet at all, you can be tracked. Eceleb or not.
Is that relevant? He's an entertainer - with all the problems of exposure and public opinion and stalkers that entails - operating on a site owned by an indifferent megacorp over which he has very little if any influence or control.
Don't be autistic. Heed the warning.
>Don't be autistic.
Lead by example.
How would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?
>20 years ago we didn't have ecelebs
Yes we did. Star Wars kid is from 2003.
Star Wars kid wasn't a professional celebrity.
Who said it did? Random crazies are not the problem, it's YouTube who's at fault, and it was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea to base your financial security on a "partnership" with them.
>Star Wars kid wasn't a professional celebrity.
Yeah, hence why he was an e-celeb.
No, he was an internet meme, he was not actively popular of his own volition
Doesn't change he was an e-celeb.
Someone who makes their living being an e-celeb is a professional. The guy in the OP is complaining about losing his job.
>and it was a bad idea and continues to be a bad idea to base your financial security on a "partnership" with them.
Jeez, I wonder why all those people keep working with he one business who has basically monopoly on platforming and exposing to the mass your audio-visual talents. It's truly a wonder for the ages.
You're really barking up the wrong tree here. YouTube's monopoly is a bad thing. Working with them is a bad thing, for your financial security and for what remains of the internet at large. Of COURSE people fricking do it anyway, because the internet has become a company town. When YouTube tanks some dude's whole career because a moron he's never met harassed him with copyright claims, the important takeaway is that YouTube fricking sucks.
Everyone got the point five replies ago, anon.
>YouTube's monopoly is a bad thing. Working with them is a bad thing
Monopoly means THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE!
You are the one barking at the wrong tree, saying "it's a bad idea to rely on youtube". It's NOT their idea to begin with. stop trying to imply they have some sort of comeupance when youtube let them down. It was never on them.
>the important takeaway is that YouTube fricking sucks.
It's not a comeuppance you twat, it's a foreseeable consequence of going into that line of work. It will keep happening as long as YT maintains its pseudo-monopoly, which YT's content partners contribute to by working with YT, as do the consumers. These are practical facts, not moral judgements.
>It's not a comeuppance
Then don't say stuff like "it was a bad idea putting their work on youtube" as if they had any kind of choice in the matter.
>which YT's content partners contribute to by working with YT, as do the consumers.
That's not how it works, anon. Users and consumers have basically no power to break a monopoly. See Boeing, whose series of failure might have put any normal company out of business a long time ago and yet, despite being only a duopoly.
The only way to break a monopoly is through direct government intervention to break it down.
There is realistically no ways for users and consumer to terminate a monopoly on their own.
YouTube's "monopoly" is based on the perception of its monopoly. Everyone uses YouTube, so if you want any exposure you have to use it too. It's not comparable to Boeing.
>YouTube's "monopoly" is based on the perception of its monopoly
It's not just a perception. It defacto give you the most exposure and it's not something the users can do anything about.
The only reason it might not be comparable to Boeing is because Boeing at least still has Airbus to compete with.
It functions like a monopoly, but it's a monopoly based on a perception. There's no significant barrier to using or creating other video sharing sites, other than the fact that everyone uses YouTube so it gives much more exposure. While any individual youtuber, other than one of the top successes, might feel they have no other choice, the problem is still within the scope of collective action. Boeing and Airbus have a duopoly because the enormous outlay and risks involved tend to drive smaller companies bankrupt, which is not a useful comparison.
>It functions like a monopoly, but it's a monopoly based on a perception.
It's really not.
A competitors would have to invest tons of cash in infrastructure and developing reach before it could even chip out Youtube.
the consumer are not left with a choice, there. There is really no other option than youtube and it is not the consumer that can actually change that on their own.
'Just don't use youtube" is not a valid strategy when there is no alternative.
There was for Twitch, remember Mixr?
That was backed by fricking Microsoft.
And it still wasn't enough. Kinda prove my point.
If it closed down for reasons other than bad market share, then possibly yes.
This. But then again, Cinemaphile is willing to bootlick and asskiss anyone and anything that takes their autism out on someone they slightly disagree with. We are quite vulnerable to propaganda.
>There's no significant barrier to using or creating other video sharing sites
Yes, there is. It's a load of cash to invest in to develop any service able to support hat youtube does with little chance of getting a rerun on investment before decades.
It's a huge factual barrier on which consumer can do nothing about.
Youtube's "Monopoly" is based on the fact that they're fricking massive and any other platform of that size would be a nightmare to maintain. Most smaller platforms are only able to operate because they're small. Youtube has Google paying the upfront costs.
>they're fricking massive
>any other platform of that size
>smaller platforms are only able to operate because they're small
Outlay costs scale better to size for video sharing than for aeroplane manufacturing, although naturally any brand new service would have to afford to operate at a loss for a while as YouTube did. Saying it can't be replaced by a peer competitor isn't the same as saying its monopoly can't be broken. I don't think it is going to be broken in the foreseeable future, but that's because the will isn't there, not the rather more stringent demands that forced Airbus to consolidate.
>based on the perception of its monopoly
No, it's based on the corporation having political and monetary control worldwide.
Fun fact: He worked in an anti-bullying campaign because of the video's effect on his personal life, now works as a curator for a museum in his home city.
Also, aren't people generally in agreement the first proto e-celebs were Maddox and a few others? The pre youtube e-celebs were way smaller and made money via running their own sites
>Anti-bullying campaign
Do these ever do anything?
No, not at all
The anti bully lesson is to kick your bully's ass
That only really works if it's just one or two people. Any more than that and you just have to cultivate stoicism.
>My sympathies to the guy, whoever he is, but "public entertainer on a website owned by someone else" is not the most stable job in the world.
How does that justify ignoring asses who make it even more unstable?
>On the other hand you're fricking moronic if you made your channel a fulltime job if you have less then 100k subs.
>Missing the point this much
You are a dumb mother fricker if you honestly think risking your livelihood over an "I have pinyons" channel is a good way to make a living. Especially now where anything can get you cancelled, even on hearsay. Don't even need psychos from Egypt to do this. He could just be cancelled over the old edgelord shit he said and apologized for in the past (which let's be real here, no one is gonna care because your past online ALWAYS sticks to you no matter how you spin or explain it)
Mentally ill people are a cancer to the world.
QRD?
Say what you want about him but the guy that has been cyberstalking and copyright striking is the biggest moron here
Imagine 4 years of shitting on some eceleb instead of getting a job to make life in your thurd shitter world better
who the frick is cartoonshi?
Can anyone please explain who are those guys and what is going on?
>YouTube has no comp-
Granted, only gamers and Just Chatters (read: women) can thrive on Twitch.
Honestly the closest competition to YouTube is tiktok, especially with all the phase to addictive short form videos. There's been other alternatives for years but most of them are unheard either for being foreign or too small to actually compete with YouTube (Dailymotion,IGTV,vevo,niconico etc)
All the other vid platforms could fuse together and still not be big enough. ppl use YT for being seen, otherwise they'd use something else to avoid copyright BS
Yea it's mainly for clout. It's less about actually creating content like it was back in early 2010's. That's why everyone does same shit like commentary videos
Isn't this the dude that screamed at and tried to cancel an autistic girl who was dying of cancer, because she made a video saying Hailey's On It would be the next Owl House? She was wrong of course, Hailey was actually funny.
>This was funny at the time but it's even funnier now
>Sperg who rants over other people's work as background noise
And I care because?
Huh, recently saw a video on Smash Bandicoot after it wouldn't stop popping up in my feed.
>Egyptian tard who makes FNF mashups
>Joins Discord servers to spam Hypermuscle Donkey Kong x Ness porn, with the excuse being that's his religion
>Growls and snorts at people explaining why he was banned(apparently that's an intimidation tactic Egyptian gangsters use)
>Screeches about flying a helicopter to Japan to assassinate Sakurai for putting Min Min in Smash
With all those Discords homosexuals taunting him about telling the Cairo police on him, guess they didn't do it or it wouldn't have escalated to this.
He is basically autistic clout chaser. Some people compare him to chris chan but that's an exaggeration
Good. Another 1 hour essay video YouTuber gone forever. Frick modern YT algorithms.
At this point you could just replace him or anyone else with ai and it still would be the same
Even better. I hate opening YouTube and seeing "Why [thing] was a underated masterpiece" in my feed constantly. It's blatant spam at this point like holy shit.
And no, I do not watch these kinds of videos and I did that thing where you press the three dots and click do not recommend. It doesn't work. I hate AI as much as the next guy but if it gets rid of these essay YouTubers then so be it.
I use an AI to summarise video essays in text.
Who is this and what happened?
Some influencer homosexual that you have to feel bad for because he talked about Cinemaphile related stuff