Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the vid-off dept.

Vid.me has announced that they are shutting down on December 15th 2017, saying that they could not find a path to sustainability.

This news should be of concern as content creators have been getting increasingly frustrated with Youtube's algorithms that demonetize their videos and this means they have one less alternative to turn towards.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:56PM (7 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:56PM (#605618) Journal

    Some content creators moved to it [vice.com] as YouTube started wildly demonetizing videos in response to the "Adpocalypse". Basically, as it became clear that YouTube would lose hundreds of millions of dollars in ad revenue due to advertisers pulling out over controversies like Coca Cola ads appearing on a racist video, YouTube went into panic mode to try and stop the money from flooding away. It became clear that years of AI (machine learning) research would be necessary to solve the problem, and in the meantime, anything remotely controversial would need to be labeled so that advertisers (most of them) could avoid it.

    Bots and Mechanical Turks have demonetized or age restricted videos with little recourse or transparency, leaving content creators on YouTube scratching their heads as to what they can get away with on the platform. YouTube has community guidelines and whatnot but they are applied unevenly. Not a surprise given that hundreds of hours of content are uploaded per minute.

    Many people on the platform earned enough to make a living creating videos full time. Having your revenues suddenly drop to 10-30% due to trumped-up controversies caused them to shop around for other sites, including vid.me, and explore other options for making $$$ (such as Patreon/GoFundMe).

    Some news outlets, particularly the Wall Street Journal, have dug around and exposed sexual/violent/weird/racist content on YouTube:

    Google Fails to Stop Major Brands From Pulling Ads From YouTube [soylentnews.org]
    YouTube Changes its Partner Program -- Channels Need 10k Views for Adverts [soylentnews.org]
    AI Beating Mechanical Turks at YouTube Censorship Accuracy [soylentnews.org]

    The latest bit is about content that made it onto the YouTube Kids app, which is supposedly tightly filtered:

    YouTube Cracks Down on Weird Content Aimed at Kids [soylentnews.org]

    Eric Feinberg has been associated with some of the controversy, allegedly because he thinks he can profit from it:

    Meet the Man Behind YouTube's Sudden Ad Crisis. He Has a Patented Fix [adage.com]
    The Truth About YouTube’s Monumental Ad Crisis [cloudhelix.io]

    YouTube has had trouble making itself profitable from the beginning. So it's no surprise that vid.me would have similar problems. There are some other options out there, but none of them are as dominant as YouTube.

    At the end of the day, YouTube will probably continue to exist even if it operates at a loss, because Google gains some significant cultural control with the platform (young people often prefer various YouTube channels and videos over TV). But there will be lots more censorship and ad wrangling, and it will be more difficult for YouTube uploaders to make a living on the platform.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Interesting=1, Informative=3, Total=4
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:03PM (6 children)

    by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:03PM (#605619)

    I'm surprised Vimeo haven't done more to pick up the slack here. There's plenty of reason to move away from YouTube. Vimeo already have the infrastructure.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:21PM (4 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:21PM (#605631) Journal

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/266201/us-market-share-of-leading-internet-video-portals/ [statista.com]

      It says:

      Leading multimedia websites in the United States in November 2016, based on market share of visits

      YouTube 78.8%
      Netflix 8%
      Hulu 2.1%
      bing Videos 0.8%
      Vimeo 0.8%
      Crunchyroll 0.8%
      Daily Motion 0.6%
      Apple iPod & iTunes 0.6%
      Yahoo! Video 0.6%
      blinkx 0.4%

      So two likely challengers to YouTube, Vimeo and Daily Motion, are #2 and #3 in the user video hosting segment (bing videos [wikipedia.org] appears to be just a search engine). And their combined view share is a whopping 1.4%, with YouTube getting 56 times more visits. Maybe you can find better data somewhere else, but it would probably look similar to this.

      Never even heard of blinkx.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:53PM (3 children)

        by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:53PM (#605677)

        I hadn't even thought of Netflix, but there's no obvious reason they couldn't branch out into ad-funded services. Perhaps paying subscribers could be spared the ads.

        Quite surprised Amazon video apparently didn't make the top 10. I figured they'd be comfortably in third place.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:58PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday December 05 2017, @03:58PM (#605680) Journal

          YouTube has ad-free subscription options such as YouTube Red [wikipedia.org]. Only a fraction of viewers pay and it doesn't cover the costs of running the site.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by Wootery on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:16PM

            by Wootery (2341) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:16PM (#605685)

            YouTube Red is where you pay to not have any YouTube ads, right? What running costs are there, over ordinary YouTube videos?

            I see no reason Netflix would be any less able to monetize freely-viewable videos than YouTube (modulo advertiser enthusiasm), and I see no reason they wouldn't be able to remove the ads for their paying subscribers.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @04:24PM (#605690)

            Of course if your options are

            1. paying for an ad-free YouTube, while giving Google even more information to collect on you, or
            2. installing an ad-blocker for free, while not giving Google any additional data over what you already provide by simply visiting the site,

            it is not hard to see which option will generally win.

            Oh, and the name "YouTube Red" probably isn't exactly the best advertising either. At least I think immediately of porn when reading that name, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So those who don't want to see porn will probably not even go as far as researching what it actually is (indeed, it may not even reach the level of a conscious decision), while those who do want to see porn might research it, but then turn away after finding out that it is, indeed, not about porn.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:48AM (#606582)
      I remember being eager to use Vimeo mainly because it isn't YT/Google/Alphabet. But they explicitly forbid game recording videos. I have no idea why. YT has demonstrated there is nothing wrong with videos of that nature, for the overwhelming majority of them at least. There must be millions of them on YT. Given the significance of communities like Amazon's Twitch acquisition, you'd think that Vimeo is foolishly losing a lot of potential with this groundless prohibition.