Some examples of what the OP means by "lost sovereignty" would be useful. I assume he means ability to monetize how he wants, or to avoid algorithmic claims against his work etc....but who knows - the author does not explain.
He had no intention to ever monetise the channel, but with YouTube's ToS update he had to agree that YouTube can monetise his channel even if he doesn't want it to.
Considering he's basically forced to serve ads he has no control over and he does not earn a cent from it, I'd say "lost sovereignty" holds true.
The business deal used to be good. Now there is a sovereignty problem. The free part is not relevant here. We can't help that Google is having problems monetizing a service by first providing an acceptable service and then later changing the terms of the deal. Perhaps their business model is unrealistic.
Google isn't having problems monetizing... their business model is entirely realistic, in fact it's wildly successful.
Perhaps the business deal was too good before, and now it's merely good? Previously it was "acceptable" for them to store and host your videos for zero cost and show them without ads, and now you think it's "unrealistic" for them to finally cover those costs with ads?
On what basis? They has an old model, build up the success of the platform, then changed the model. On what basis can we judge the new model successful versus the momentum of the old model?
Literally the line that says "YouTube ads" in their quarterly report?
2020 Q1 was $4 billion, 2021 Q1 was $6 billion. [1]
Seems like wild success to me. But, you know, keep checking for the next few quarters if you're convinced Google is killing their golden goose. They've got some pretty smart business analysts and product people over there though, I wouldn't bet against them.
Perhaps it would be useful for competition to require media platforms provide content creators a way out. E.g. a mandatory "redirect to my new site" option.
>> What does he expect for a site that serves his videos for free, not to mention recommends them to people as well to get a wider audience?
Lets turn that around. YouTube is a huge content provider that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE and they feel that they can "monetize" it any way they see fit. There needs to be some balance. If enough people leave like this, there will be a credible competitor to YouTube and they'll never get those people back. Better yet, self hosting and federated services will start to become a thing and that could be an existential threat to Google itself.
But sure, they are free to do what they like on their platform. Doesn't mean it's always the best thing to do.
> that has 100 percent of their content provided FOR FREE
Not true. Creators can get paid for their video views and some make a living at it. Some of the content Google doesn't pay anything for, but tons of it (and most of the popular stuff) Google pays for on a per-view basis. It's not free to Google.
> There needs to be some balance.
That already is the balance, Google paying creators for the popular content.
Was his expectation that YouTube would cover his hosting, encoding and bandwidth costs for free forever? I wonder what his backup plan is and where will he host the videos now.
(It's still kind of wierd that YouTube doesn't support simply paying for their hosting.)
I can't speak for him, but yes, I was (foolishly) expecting free YouTube hosting forever without ads because that's what they've always provided. I would think that enough YouTube content makers opt into ads and monetization to cover the costs for those of us that don't want it.
They don’t expect that. They create an incentive structure to attract creators they want at the price they want and are ok I assume if others choose to not work with them. It’s not like YouTube called him and said “hey what the heck man, why did you stop uploading?”
He posted a video[1] about why he left. It sounds like YouTube updated terms of service that required him to allow YouTube to put ads in his videos and he never wanted to monetize his work, he’s making the videos to share information, not to make money for him or anyone else.
"Poor giant video hosting company has to play multiple ads before, during and after every video otherwise they go broke" doesn't really work either. Having the most content available to show viewers has made them the de facto video sharing website - videos freely contributed by people who wanted to share something with the world have helped to put YT in the position where they are basically a monopoly and they are now aggressively capitalising on that. I don't believe they need to monetise everything just to keep the lights on.
Ultimately though, the guy doesn't want his content monetised so he's removing it - that's his prerogative just as much as it is Youtube's for advertising however they please.
nobody called anyone a villain. he simply didn’t like the change and moved to a new service. basic free market forces working well and we can all be happy about it
no one called anyone a villain, but most will agree that having the terms of service changed out from under you after you already have hosted content/a social following/an internet 'home' is a pretty shitty thing to experience.
does the means justify the ends? should this be allowed to ensure that the YT bottom line isn't red? I don't know; all I know is that the personal experience of the content creator got to such a negative point that they decided to forego all the benefits of YouTube and host elsewhere -- and that's really the only point that matters.
Thats a good point. Hosting isn't free, so someone is going to have to pay some cost. Even if the original goal was just to share information and not profit, there are some costs associated with running a site.
One wonders if youtube had an option for you to pay them to host videos for you without ads, if that would be popular. Of course then someone with a 1 million+ view video and a large bill would then start complaining..
You can always host yourself but you loose the audience youtube brings.
In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact. If you want more control, publish on a standard website on a standard Linux machine.
>In general, when we use someone's platform to publish, we give up control. People continually rediscover this fact.
In broad strokes : you're right.
For the sake of a bit more nuance, i'd like to add that 'the control' isn't just given up by the user. 'The control' is promised by providers, and then slowly dwindled until some threshold is met where users are lost to competitors.
YouTube became popular because it gave creators just enough independence, while handling the technical stuff for them.
Now that the technical part is becoming increasingly easy to deal with, it stands to reason that YouTube must become more flexible, or lose market share.
Will G/YT be flexible enough to keep everyone happy enough to exist within their walled garden? Personally, I don't think so -- and people like the parent article are proving that point by packing up and taking their data elsewhere.
Discoverability is becoming less and less of an issue due to the pervasiveness of many different types and styles of social media; IMO that's YT's big advantage and I feel with anti-creator stuff like this stuff, along with YTs recommender being one of the biggest industry in-jokes on the planet -- they really squandered that advantage.
