▲ 613 ▼ Our Channel Could Be Deleted - Gamers Nexus (www.youtube.com) submitted 1 year ago by rustyredox@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 213 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Sickday@kbin.earth 83 points 1 year ago (45 children) Time to move to nebula? :) permalink fedilink source hideshow 45 child comments replies: [+] Deceptichum 85 points 1 year ago (27 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago (24 children) Every substantial youtube channel should be hosting and backing up to a self-hosted, owned, peertube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 year ago (21 children) Issue is such channels need giant amounts of storage for this. Linus tech Tips showed his multiple upgrades over the years it's quite crazy what they need on storage space. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* Not just storage, but bandwidth. Streaming one video to potentially thousands of people at once can get very expensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auth@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (16 children) LTT storage is excessive. He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. Plus if you're a youtuber with millions of subscribers you can afford to pay for a few TB of storage to hold and serve your videos. Its not that expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent [–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago Storage? Traffic is the real cost permalink fedilink source parent [–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago As someone who worked for years in video transcoding, archiving, streaming, and content management in general: there are absolutely ways to do this efficiently in a self hosted context. You could absolutely build a system that fits your bespoke needs in all of these categories. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago Hosting a peertube instance would be almost nothing I comparison to this. It'd just be a duplicate of all uploaded videos at worst, which he's storing many times that amount of raw footage anyway. They probably wouldn't even notice the overhead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) With many, many servers, otherwise things would go down fast on each new video release. And each server having a fuckton of bandwidth, too. That's not free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago its fine if its first and foremost a backup, and not a public platform. then you don't need the bandwidth. then they can open it up when google deleted their channel. they still need to figure out the capacity issues, but at least the content was not lost. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loonsun@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago I don't know if I'm stupid or not but I tried going to peertube and I couldn't for the life of my understand what I was looking at. It just seemed like a vague soup of instances with no continuity or ability to know what I was looking at. Maybe I accessed it wrong but I didn't fully get it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] biofaust@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago These days I am looking at their video on their channel on Rumble while working. I think they are achieving financial and political pressure in the most wholesome way possible. That said, I don't think I am going to click on anything else on Rumble, as it is all Tucker Calson, bitcoin and other shit like that. I don't see any future in it; it has achieved Dailymotion status in no time. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago How about Floatplane /s permalink fedilink source parent [+] artyom@piefed.social -20 points 1 year ago (16 children) Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy. Floatplane would be ideal but I think he burned that bridge. PeerTube is probably his best bet. I don't want to see his channel deleted but I'm also VERY interested in what would take place in the aftermath... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 48 points 1 year ago (13 children) Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy. https://nebula.tv/privacy It looks pretty run of the mill to me? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) Because youtube was so much better in that regard? Might sell your data in the future is a hell of a lot better than currently selling the shit out of your data. Nebula is a side grade in terms of privacy, but an upgrade in terms of creators not getting their shit deleted for no good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm so fucking sick and tired of everyone saying "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!" as if that's any sort of defense. The world is fucked. You do you but I'm gonna do whatever I can not to contribute to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ripcord@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago K permalink fedilink source parent [–] snoons@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) https://tosdr.org/en/service/2459 but seems it isn't completed yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 1 year ago Just checked the contributor's page, the crawled privacy policy being referenced is stated to be 4 months out of date, but the policy on Nebula's website hasn't been changed since Aug 31 2023, so I think TOSDR might be a little bugged, and just doesn't have all the current policy's points available for contributors to tag. The current privacy policy is much more lengthy to cover local state privacy regulations, the scope of what they now offer, etc. Still, it's all pretty boilerplate, and nothing about it is really out of the ordinary or super harmful. Extremely basic attribution might be used if you click onto Nebula from an ad, and they might share a non-identifying hashed ID with that company. They'll collect aggregate statistics to determine the impact of marketing campaigns, they sometimes email you, they collect data on your device that most webservers would by default in logs. All very standard. If they update any part of the policy about how they collect/use/share your data, they'll notify you, They even explicitly say to not provide them with info on your race/politics/religion/health/biometrics/genetics/criminality or union membership. You are given an explicit right to delete your account regardless of local privacy laws, and they give you a single email to contact specifically regarding any requests related to the privacy policy. None of this is crazy, and I have no clue why artyom would call it a "shithole" based on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago I feel like this site needs more attention. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago Maybe it not being in legalese just means more people understand it? This is a pretty acceptable privacy policy relative to most of the other ones you will have already agreed to in your life. permalink fedilink source parent [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I'm anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula's policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn't written by lawyers, I can see how you'd not be a fan. However beyond being in legalese I'm not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world's privacy policy Nebula's looks "good enough" to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that's like.. pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aarrodri@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Elaborate? Genuinely asking.. what is your key takeaways for "it's a shit hole"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 1 year ago Pretty much "we collect as much data as we can and sell it to data brokers/advertising companies to be used to target you for advertising." permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Deceptichum 85 points 1 year ago (27 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 27 child comments replies: [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago (24 children) Every substantial youtube channel should be hosting and backing up to a self-hosted, owned, peertube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 year ago (21 children) Issue is such channels need giant amounts of storage for this. Linus tech Tips showed his multiple upgrades over the years it's quite crazy what they need on storage space. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* Not just storage, but bandwidth. Streaming one video to potentially thousands of people at once can get very expensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auth@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (16 children) LTT storage is excessive. He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. Plus if you're a youtuber with millions of subscribers you can afford to pay for a few TB of storage to hold and serve your videos. Its not that expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent [–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago Storage? Traffic is the real cost permalink fedilink source parent [–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago As someone who worked for years in video transcoding, archiving, streaming, and content management in general: there are absolutely ways to do this efficiently in a self hosted context. You could absolutely build a system that fits your bespoke needs in all of these categories. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago Hosting a peertube instance would be almost nothing I comparison to this. It'd just be a duplicate of all uploaded videos at worst, which he's storing many times that amount of raw footage anyway. They probably wouldn't even notice the overhead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) With many, many servers, otherwise things would go down fast on each new video release. And each server having a fuckton of bandwidth, too. That's not free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago its fine if its first and foremost a backup, and not a public platform. then you don't need the bandwidth. then they can open it up when google deleted their channel. they still need to figure out the capacity issues, but at least the content was not lost. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loonsun@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago I don't know if I'm stupid or not but I tried going to peertube and I couldn't for the life of my understand what I was looking at. It just seemed like a vague soup of instances with no continuity or ability to know what I was looking at. Maybe I accessed it wrong but I didn't fully get it. permalink fedilink source parent [–] biofaust@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago These days I am looking at their video on their channel on Rumble while working. I think they are achieving financial and political pressure in the most wholesome way possible. That said, I don't think I am going to click on anything else on Rumble, as it is all Tucker Calson, bitcoin and other shit like that. I don't see any future in it; it has achieved Dailymotion status in no time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 77 points 1 year ago (24 children) Every substantial youtube channel should be hosting and backing up to a self-hosted, owned, peertube. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 year ago (21 children) Issue is such channels need giant amounts of storage for this. Linus tech Tips showed his multiple upgrades over the years it's quite crazy what they need on storage space. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* Not just storage, but bandwidth. Streaming one video to potentially thousands of people at once can get very expensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auth@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (16 children) LTT storage is excessive. He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. Plus if you're a youtuber with millions of subscribers you can afford to pay for a few TB of storage to hold and serve your videos. Its not that expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent [–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago Storage? Traffic is the real cost permalink fedilink source parent [–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago As someone who worked for years in video transcoding, archiving, streaming, and content management in general: there are absolutely ways to do this efficiently in a self hosted context. You could absolutely build a system that fits your bespoke needs in all of these categories. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago Hosting a peertube instance would be almost nothing I comparison to this. It'd just be a duplicate of all uploaded videos at worst, which he's storing many times that amount of raw footage anyway. They probably wouldn't even notice the overhead. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) With many, many servers, otherwise things would go down fast on each new video release. And each server having a fuckton of bandwidth, too. That's not free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago its fine if its first and foremost a backup, and not a public platform. then you don't need the bandwidth. then they can open it up when google deleted their channel. they still need to figure out the capacity issues, but at least the content was not lost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 39 points 1 year ago (21 children) Issue is such channels need giant amounts of storage for this. Linus tech Tips showed his multiple upgrades over the years it's quite crazy what they need on storage space. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* Not just storage, but bandwidth. Streaming one video to potentially thousands of people at once can get very expensive. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Auth@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (16 children) LTT storage is excessive. He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. Plus if you're a youtuber with millions of subscribers you can afford to pay for a few TB of storage to hold and serve your videos. Its not that expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent [–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago Storage? Traffic is the real cost permalink fedilink source parent [–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago As someone who worked for years in video transcoding, archiving, streaming, and content management in general: there are absolutely ways to do this efficiently in a self hosted context. You could absolutely build a system that fits your bespoke needs in all of these categories. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago Hosting a peertube instance would be almost nothing I comparison to this. It'd just be a duplicate of all uploaded videos at worst, which he's storing many times that amount of raw footage anyway. They probably wouldn't even notice the overhead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago* Not just storage, but bandwidth. Streaming one video to potentially thousands of people at once can get very expensive. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago (16 children) LTT storage is excessive. He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. Plus if you're a youtuber with millions of subscribers you can afford to pay for a few TB of storage to hold and serve your videos. Its not that expensive. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent [–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent
[–] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 24 points 1 year ago He stores all his footage in full quality instead of just storing his final edited videos in a compressed format. That's the right way to do it, you want to avoid generation loss as much as possible. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 29 points 1 year ago (12 children) Not after you lose your channel and all your income. PeerTube doesn't appeal to people who make a living at this because there's no revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent [+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) there is revenue stream. liberapay is integrated, get your viewers to subscribe through there. they can donate any amount, literally. then its also common that content creators cooperate with companies, mostly tech companies, to advertise their products. that can still be done on peertube. what they can't anymore is to show generic ads for everyone every few minutes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 year ago Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] socialsecurity@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (9 children) Sometimes it ain't about the revenue stream. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent [–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 33 points 1 year ago Except for these people, it almost definitely is. They have staff, an office, inventory to manage, etc. Most YouTubers nowadays aren't just operating on their own, and thus have financial expenses outside of just paying themselves for their own labor, that can't just keep going if their revenue stream goes down, or even just takes a large enough cut. It's unfortunate, but that's just how a lot of the content creation industry works right now, especially on YouTube. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (2 children) GN is literally a sizable business, it absolutely is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) If you are running a business then you should either toe the line with your platform provider or make sure you have alternatives in place to move away from them if you value full creative control. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] socialsecurity@piefed.social 1 point 1 year ago These people don't understand what a class war looks like... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (3 children) What do you want people to buy food with. Welfare checks lol? Where would they get money to buy stuff for testing. They have an acoustic chamber that's fairly expensive. Revenue and professional channels are intimately linked and removing the revenue stream would open them up to bought reviews like heiLTT. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Either way the creative control is compromised, just in different ways. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zpiritual@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money? Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mondez@lemdro.id 1 point 1 year ago That isn't true though, plenty of people engage in creative endevours just for the pleasure of it. Maybe this channel wouldn't but as soon as it started relying on other people and platforms there was always the risk those wouldn't align with the creative message and something would have to give. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 5 points 1 year ago It is if you are trying to fulfil the requirements from 2 comments above. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] loie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago Agreed. For archival, honestly 720p is good enough. Hockey highlights are uploaded in 720p, but 60 fps for the high motion - for GN or any other info based talking head type stuff, 30 fps will look fine. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Evono@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago Uh he just build a 2PB rack or something so hes far away from TB permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Damage@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 year ago Storage? Traffic is the real cost permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago As someone who worked for years in video transcoding, archiving, streaming, and content management in general: there are absolutely ways to do this efficiently in a self hosted context. You could absolutely build a system that fits your bespoke needs in all of these categories. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 year ago Hosting a peertube instance would be almost nothing I comparison to this. It'd just be a duplicate of all uploaded videos at worst, which he's storing many times that amount of raw footage anyway. They probably wouldn't even notice the overhead. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) With many, many servers, otherwise things would go down fast on each new video release. And each server having a fuckton of bandwidth, too. That's not free. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago its fine if its first and foremost a backup, and not a public platform. then you don't need the bandwidth. then they can open it up when google deleted their channel. they still need to figure out the capacity issues, but at least the content was not lost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago its fine if its first and foremost a backup, and not a public platform. then you don't need the bandwidth. then they can open it up when google deleted their channel. they still need to figure out the capacity issues, but at least the content was not lost. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] loonsun@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 year ago I don't know if I'm stupid or not but I tried going to peertube and I couldn't for the life of my understand what I was looking at. It just seemed like a vague soup of instances with no continuity or ability to know what I was looking at. Maybe I accessed it wrong but I didn't fully get it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] biofaust@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago These days I am looking at their video on their channel on Rumble while working. I think they are achieving financial and political pressure in the most wholesome way possible. That said, I don't think I am going to click on anything else on Rumble, as it is all Tucker Calson, bitcoin and other shit like that. I don't see any future in it; it has achieved Dailymotion status in no time. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 year ago How about Floatplane /s permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -20 points 1 year ago (16 children) Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy. Floatplane would be ideal but I think he burned that bridge. PeerTube is probably his best bet. I don't want to see his channel deleted but I'm also VERY interested in what would take place in the aftermath... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 48 points 1 year ago (13 children) Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy. https://nebula.tv/privacy It looks pretty run of the mill to me? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) Because youtube was so much better in that regard? Might sell your data in the future is a hell of a lot better than currently selling the shit out of your data. Nebula is a side grade in terms of privacy, but an upgrade in terms of creators not getting their shit deleted for no good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm so fucking sick and tired of everyone saying "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!" as if that's any sort of defense. The world is fucked. You do you but I'm gonna do whatever I can not to contribute to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ripcord@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago K permalink fedilink source parent [–] snoons@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) https://tosdr.org/en/service/2459 but seems it isn't completed yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 1 year ago Just checked the contributor's page, the crawled privacy policy being referenced is stated to be 4 months out of date, but the policy on Nebula's website hasn't been changed since Aug 31 2023, so I think TOSDR might be a little bugged, and just doesn't have all the current policy's points available for contributors to tag. The current privacy policy is much more lengthy to cover local state privacy regulations, the scope of what they now offer, etc. Still, it's all pretty boilerplate, and nothing about it is really out of the ordinary or super harmful. Extremely basic attribution might be used if you click onto Nebula from an ad, and they might share a non-identifying hashed ID with that company. They'll collect aggregate statistics to determine the impact of marketing campaigns, they sometimes email you, they collect data on your device that most webservers would by default in logs. All very standard. If they update any part of the policy about how they collect/use/share your data, they'll notify you, They even explicitly say to not provide them with info on your race/politics/religion/health/biometrics/genetics/criminality or union membership. You are given an explicit right to delete your account regardless of local privacy laws, and they give you a single email to contact specifically regarding any requests related to the privacy policy. None of this is crazy, and I have no clue why artyom would call it a "shithole" based on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago I feel like this site needs more attention. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago Maybe it not being in legalese just means more people understand it? This is a pretty acceptable privacy policy relative to most of the other ones you will have already agreed to in your life. permalink fedilink source parent [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I'm anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula's policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn't written by lawyers, I can see how you'd not be a fan. However beyond being in legalese I'm not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world's privacy policy Nebula's looks "good enough" to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that's like.. pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent [–] Aarrodri@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Elaborate? Genuinely asking.. what is your key takeaways for "it's a shit hole"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 1 year ago Pretty much "we collect as much data as we can and sell it to data brokers/advertising companies to be used to target you for advertising." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 48 points 1 year ago (13 children) Nebula is a shithole, just have a glance at their privacy policy. https://nebula.tv/privacy It looks pretty run of the mill to me? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) Because youtube was so much better in that regard? Might sell your data in the future is a hell of a lot better than currently selling the shit out of your data. Nebula is a side grade in terms of privacy, but an upgrade in terms of creators not getting their shit deleted for no good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm so fucking sick and tired of everyone saying "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!" as if that's any sort of defense. The world is fucked. You do you but I'm gonna do whatever I can not to contribute to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ripcord@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago K permalink fedilink source parent [–] snoons@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) https://tosdr.org/en/service/2459 but seems it isn't completed yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 1 year ago Just checked the contributor's page, the crawled privacy policy being referenced is stated to be 4 months out of date, but the policy on Nebula's website hasn't been changed since Aug 31 2023, so I think TOSDR might be a little bugged, and just doesn't have all the current policy's points available for contributors to tag. The current privacy policy is much more lengthy to cover local state privacy regulations, the scope of what they now offer, etc. Still, it's all pretty boilerplate, and nothing about it is really out of the ordinary or super harmful. Extremely basic attribution might be used if you click onto Nebula from an ad, and they might share a non-identifying hashed ID with that company. They'll collect aggregate statistics to determine the impact of marketing campaigns, they sometimes email you, they collect data on your device that most webservers would by default in logs. All very standard. If they update any part of the policy about how they collect/use/share your data, they'll notify you, They even explicitly say to not provide them with info on your race/politics/religion/health/biometrics/genetics/criminality or union membership. You are given an explicit right to delete your account regardless of local privacy laws, and they give you a single email to contact specifically regarding any requests related to the privacy policy. None of this is crazy, and I have no clue why artyom would call it a "shithole" based on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago I feel like this site needs more attention. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago Maybe it not being in legalese just means more people understand it? This is a pretty acceptable privacy policy relative to most of the other ones you will have already agreed to in your life. permalink fedilink source parent [+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I'm anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula's policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn't written by lawyers, I can see how you'd not be a fan. However beyond being in legalese I'm not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world's privacy policy Nebula's looks "good enough" to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that's like.. pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 points 1 year ago (3 children) Because youtube was so much better in that regard? Might sell your data in the future is a hell of a lot better than currently selling the shit out of your data. Nebula is a side grade in terms of privacy, but an upgrade in terms of creators not getting their shit deleted for no good reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm so fucking sick and tired of everyone saying "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!" as if that's any sort of defense. The world is fucked. You do you but I'm gonna do whatever I can not to contribute to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ripcord@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago K permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children) I'm so fucking sick and tired of everyone saying "WELL EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT TOO!" as if that's any sort of defense. The world is fucked. You do you but I'm gonna do whatever I can not to contribute to it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent [+] ripcord@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago K permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.org 6 points 1 year ago In a rising tide of enshittification we all have to find higher, cleaner ground. Standing on a hill that seems to be above the shit for awhile is an ok strategy even if that hill is owned by someone else and might sink into the shit eventually. It’s working for now and it’s better than being in the shit. Not everyone can build their own hill, at least not right away. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snoons@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago (2 children) https://tosdr.org/en/service/2459 but seems it isn't completed yet permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 1 year ago Just checked the contributor's page, the crawled privacy policy being referenced is stated to be 4 months out of date, but the policy on Nebula's website hasn't been changed since Aug 31 2023, so I think TOSDR might be a little bugged, and just doesn't have all the current policy's points available for contributors to tag. The current privacy policy is much more lengthy to cover local state privacy regulations, the scope of what they now offer, etc. Still, it's all pretty boilerplate, and nothing about it is really out of the ordinary or super harmful. Extremely basic attribution might be used if you click onto Nebula from an ad, and they might share a non-identifying hashed ID with that company. They'll collect aggregate statistics to determine the impact of marketing campaigns, they sometimes email you, they collect data on your device that most webservers would by default in logs. All very standard. If they update any part of the policy about how they collect/use/share your data, they'll notify you, They even explicitly say to not provide them with info on your race/politics/religion/health/biometrics/genetics/criminality or union membership. You are given an explicit right to delete your account regardless of local privacy laws, and they give you a single email to contact specifically regarding any requests related to the privacy policy. None of this is crazy, and I have no clue why artyom would call it a "shithole" based on that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago I feel like this site needs more attention. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmbitiousProcess@piefed.social 16 points 1 year ago Just checked the contributor's page, the crawled privacy policy being referenced is stated to be 4 months out of date, but the policy on Nebula's website hasn't been changed since Aug 31 2023, so I think TOSDR might be a little bugged, and just doesn't have all the current policy's points available for contributors to tag. The current privacy policy is much more lengthy to cover local state privacy regulations, the scope of what they now offer, etc. Still, it's all pretty boilerplate, and nothing about it is really out of the ordinary or super harmful. Extremely basic attribution might be used if you click onto Nebula from an ad, and they might share a non-identifying hashed ID with that company. They'll collect aggregate statistics to determine the impact of marketing campaigns, they sometimes email you, they collect data on your device that most webservers would by default in logs. All very standard. If they update any part of the policy about how they collect/use/share your data, they'll notify you, They even explicitly say to not provide them with info on your race/politics/religion/health/biometrics/genetics/criminality or union membership. You are given an explicit right to delete your account regardless of local privacy laws, and they give you a single email to contact specifically regarding any requests related to the privacy policy. None of this is crazy, and I have no clue why artyom would call it a "shithole" based on that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago I feel like this site needs more attention. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago Maybe it not being in legalese just means more people understand it? This is a pretty acceptable privacy policy relative to most of the other ones you will have already agreed to in your life. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] artyom@piefed.social -11 points 1 year ago (4 children) Yes, that's the problem. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I'm anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula's policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn't written by lawyers, I can see how you'd not be a fan. However beyond being in legalese I'm not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world's privacy policy Nebula's looks "good enough" to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that's like.. pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children) I guess perspective here depends on your anchoring point. I'm anchoring mostly on the existing platform (YouTube), and Nebula's policy here looks better (subjectively much better) than what runs as normal in big tech. If your anchor is your local PeerTube instance with a privacy policy that wasn't written by lawyers, I can see how you'd not be a fan. However beyond being in legalese I'm not sure what part of it you find so bad as to describe it as a shithole. Even compared to e.g., lemmy.world's privacy policy Nebula's looks "good enough" to me. They collect slightly more device information than I wish they did and are more open to having/using advertising partners than I had expected (from what I know of the service as someone who has never actually used it) but that's like.. pretty tame compared what most of the big platforms have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -4 points 1 year ago (2 children) I don't have an "anchor point" other than what's what's fair and respectful of your customers. "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" is neither. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MHLoppy@fedia.io 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child) "We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this: The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies. and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says: We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law. So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social -1 points 1 year ago Oh, I didn't realize they said they wouldn't sell your information, despite having a privacy policy that explicitly allows for it. My mistake. No one would just lie on the internet like that... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Aarrodri@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 child) Elaborate? Genuinely asking.. what is your key takeaways for "it's a shit hole"? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 1 year ago Pretty much "we collect as much data as we can and sell it to data brokers/advertising companies to be used to target you for advertising." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 1 year ago Pretty much "we collect as much data as we can and sell it to data brokers/advertising companies to be used to target you for advertising." permalink fedilink source parent