They changed their layout and now it's slow and bloated like a fucking nigger. The one good thing about it is I don't have to click on "load more comments" on the bottom since it does that automatically now.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-26 5:37
Jewtube is out for the alt right. They are shutting down all red pilled videos. We'll have to find a new site bro.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-26 12:55
Word up, fam. dtube.video looks promising. Honestly, at his point PewDiePie should come out as Alt-Right, and if YouTube kicks him off, he can go and assemble a team to create an alternative platform. If he did that, Google/Alphabet would shit quite a large brick since he has the capital and the audience to be able to overcome the economy of scale and create a network effect to truly rival YouTube. Only thing stopping him would be the balls to actually go through with it.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-26 22:35
I don't know if it's because I cleared my cache and upgraded my browser, but now they reverted back to the old layout.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-26 23:16
>>4 I didn't do any of that but it has reverted back to the old layout for me too.
Name:
Anonymous2017-08-30 22:00
Now back to the bloated shit again. Also, UN wants USA to put in a "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment. Can someone please pull a Tim McVeigh on the UN building in New York City already? Kthxbai.
Now they've replaced the "Discussion" area on channels with a "Community" page making YouTube more like a combination of Facebook and Minds. Go home, JewJube, you're drunk.
>>9 I-I'm not shilling! I'm just showing people an alternative! It's not like I'm annoying other people and derailing discussion! There's no way I'm responsible for any of your negative reactions!
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-01 8:06
Something to note is that YouTube, ostensibly, will demonetize videos based on what sites reference them. What this basically entails is that YouTube channels popular on 4chan are more likely to be demonetized because their videos are being circulated on 4chan. There's no real article or journal I can site to give my claims authenticity, though, since this is all mostly social media speculation, but this is a pretty viable theory if you look at a family-friendly, advertiser-friendly YouTube channel like RoTW, "Review Brah", and the correlation between his videos being demonetized and his popularity on places like /r9k/. This is obviously fucked up since RoTW has no control over what circles his videos appeal to. It's hard to know whether sites flagged as disfavorable are the product of an algorithm or being manually procured; if the former, that means that a site like this also has some (albeit minor) negative weight to the YouTube links that it circulates.
I'm not a huge advocate of HookTube. I use it, but I sincerely think that the guy who shills HookTube in any thread with a YouTube link is a serious asshole and a moron, which is why I'll share HookTube links when I have a video to share, and I use the HookTube redirect userscript, but I never, ever shove HookTube down the throats of other people, for fear that it'll inevitably leave a sour taste. With that in mind, this new revelation could be serious incentive to use HookTube links for the sake of channels that you like when you share them on sites like this. This means that, while previously, the appeal of HookTube was very insignificant in that it was only a lesser evil, the appeal of HookTube, now, is, in some small way, can actually be thought of in positive terms.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-01 8:28
>>11 Wouldn't it be problematic comments that are triggering reviewbrah's demonetization??
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-01 9:49
>>12 No, as I understand, those comments are just censored. The uploader won't realize the comments are censored, but if that person were to log out of their YouTube account and look at their own video, they would notice that the comment count is noticeably lower. And even if that were the case, what makes you think that YouTube can't weight bad comments and bad referrals? You get bad YouTube comments on every video on that platform, though, so I doubt that censored comments count towards whether a video is demonetized or not.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-01 23:32
>>7 I actually do use HookTube, but sometimes I have to go on YouTube proper to see things like full comment chains (since HookTube only can fetch the top voted up comments) but I do use HookTube as often as I can.
I'm not a huge advocate of HookTube. I use it, but I sincerely think that the guy who shills HookTube in any thread with a YouTube link is a serious asshole and a moron, which is why I'll share HookTube links when I have a video to share
I used to link to HookTube first when sharing a video, and I still got hate for it. First, the anti-HookTube people here claimed that it was stealing content, then said it's bad because it uses JavaScript, and now they just pick a fight whenever they want. It's gonna get hate no matter what. As for Reviewbrah, I think a plausible reason why he's demonetized is because he does unbiased reviews of fast food items and the corporations no longer want to support that. I noticed this happened once he started getting really popular and some mainstream media outlets began to do stories on him. Now he uses Patreon, and he probably gets more money from his fans that pledge to him on there than he ever did from advertising anyway.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 1:22
I don't believe the referring sites play a role in demonetization and do believe this is a lie put forward by hooknosetube shills to justify propping up youtube by masking it behind a new domain instead of petitioning content creators to set up shop on alternative video sites. Am I wrong? Irrelevant, the question you need to ask is: what if I'm not wrong.....?
instead of petitioning content creators to set up shop on alternative video sites.
They already do. vid.me, BitChute, d.tube, pew.tube, et al are used as alternatives/backups for YouTube content creators. What's propping up YouTube is the same thing that propped up AT&T/Ma Bell (before its breakup in 1983), and that's the network effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 3:00
>>17 Apparently youtube's CEO is a Jewish women so the issue will solve itself when the company inevitably fails in the next few years and google has to sell it off like Boston Dynamics. However, you can hasten its demise by making sure you spread actual youtube alternatives rather than simply a youtube overlay. If the network effect is what props youtube up, who is it that props up the network behind the network effect? It is you, the user.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 5:43
>>15 Goddamnit, just fucking shut up already. Everyone hates you.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 5:45
>>17 Ignoring the fact that vid.me is dead, 3/4 of the sites you mentioned have user policies that are significantly worse than that of YouTube's--not to mention the fact that those some sites steer their users towards a nonfree license. BitChute is basically the only exception, and normal people don't even grasp how it works.
>>17-18 Yes, that's the Big Issue, right? But do you really want to make positive contributions to projects that are equally abusive as YouTube while not even half as viable? You insist on these YouTube alternatives, but you yourself don't even use them with exclusivity. When push comes to shove, YouTube is the only platform we can agree on. The exception to that would be BitChute, in part because of the license but mostly because of their decentralized model. How many people can garner the same amount of resources Alphabet has? If you try to imitate YouTube, of course you're going to crash and burn. Video streaming is expensive as hell and doesn't make money. Vid.me proved as much. Maybe things would be different with, say, IPFS, since it's designed with persistent p2p storage in mind.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 8:07
>>22 Reading the vidme statement it looks like they failed because they couldn't convince jews to burn money "advertising" on their channel like on youtube. All this proves is that ad-supported platforms are over and the future is in direct user transactions, even youtube is trying to do deals with msm to get cable money because marketers are realizing video ads are ineffective and CPMs are cratering.
But imagine a video streaming service that cost $20 a month: 15 of those $ could be split between every video you watched that month and paid out to the creators, meaning if you watched an average of 5 videos a day for a month you would split that $15 between 150 videos paying out 10c per view which is $100 CPM for creators. Incredible! That kind of thinking is clearly the future, ads are the past.
You could also combine this with some kind of software and pay out for article views, etc. to create an entirely ad-free monetization pathway for websites. Brave browser is trying something like that with btc micropayments for page views, but I'm not sure how far along they are.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 8:34
>>23 I doubt the former. Even if there are people willing to pay for that, paid services are inherently insecure and, beyond anything else, inconvenient. The latter doesn't seem unlikely; though, cryptocoins are a special kind of black magicks I'll never be able to grasp.
Paid services are the future of internet services. Only a retard wouldn't pay for a revenue sharing video streaming service while handing out Patreon donations without a second thought. How is it different, retards?!
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 9:45
>>20,22 I don't know what the solution is here, guys. YouTube is a household name and institution, and to get the cosmic shift you're seeking somebody extremely popular like PewDiePie or the guys that run the Dude Perfect channel would have to make at least one alternative site their second home. Doing so would make whatever site they moved to double in popularity overnight and probably completely crash the Web server. Its it likely to happen? No. The other thing would be for the government to step in and break it up, but that's also not likely to happen since I'm sure they benefit from having online monopolies to make it easier for signals intelligence gathering.
not to mention the fact that those some sites steer their users towards a nonfree license.
I've looked at pew.tube and d.tube, there doesn't seem to be any kind of license for videos. In that case, you could just add a quick introduction at the beginning of every video what version of Creative Commons license it's under.
The exception to that would be BitChute,...() mostly because of their decentralized model.
d.tube also is decentralized. I think only pew.tube isn't (ignoring vid.me).
>>26 The way you write makes you sound like a shill. It doesn't help that your namedrops just show how shallow your understanding of the whole situation is.
Doing so would make whatever site they moved to double in popularity overnight and probably completely crash the Web server.
And proof you didn't read the thread. Yes, good point, as it's been painfully pointed out several times, the only people with the resources to pull off the YouTube model are the people who run YouTube. Thanks for the summation. I'm sure all of us appreciate yet another vapid, useless post like yours. "Decentralized model". You're full of shit.
>>27 I like how you focused on that, but not how I point out that there isn't a non-free license or any license for content on these alt sites. I also checked out their policies and they're not any worse than what YouTube already has, in fact, they're pretty laissez-faire in comparison, for example, pew.tube's terms of service: https://pew.tube/termsofservice it would appear that it is you that is full of shit. Eat a dick.
Youtube is in the process of failing because it cannot provide its creators with reasonable income because its beholden to an ad-supported model which has failed, and the only advertisers who are willing to throw money away on it are "brand buyers" who only want generic and non-controversial videos, meaning youtube is forced to encourage boring videos on their platform and shut down anything compelling.
Youtube has the capacity to to serve 1 billion HD videos at once but that is irrelevant because Google is subsidizing the bandwidth and taking big losses in the hopes that one day it will be profitable due to advertising. I'm telling you right now, it won't be. Video streaming using the centralized model will never be ad supported, only subscription-based services can see a profit because it costs so much to transfer video.
Small time creators are going to be shut out of the "ad supported internet" just like they were shut out of TV. Ad supported anything is a big fail because advertisers are either kikes or nervous goyim who are scared of controversy. People may not believe it yet, but the next Youtube will cost money and will share that revenue with creators. People want to see independent media and they will pay to support it if there is no other option. Hell, Patreon might replace youtube as the go-to for independent video content if things continue like this.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 23:17
>>28 Nice bluff, idiot. If anyone were to read that terms of service, they'd see past your bullshit in a heartbeat. There's even several typos in there. And of course a specific license isn't mentioned in the ToS, you imbecile. If you were to just make an account yourself--or take a gander at the license distributed on other videos--you would know that they don't facilitate an easy path towards a free license other than the explicit, concerted announcement of that license by the content creator themselves. It's amazing that you can point out a fact blatantly in contradiction of your own argument and pretend like it gives you authority.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-02 23:49
>>30 I think that's why they tried to mitigate this with YouTube Red, their paid subscription service. Some people were actually on board with it prior to their ridiculous censorship nonsense and I wonder how many customers they lost over it.
User Content that is illegal or that would encourage, solicit, foster, glorify or provide instructions for any criminal or civil offense;p
And of course a specific license isn't mentioned in the ToS you would know that they don't facilitate an easy path towards a free license other than the explicit, concerted announcement of that license by the content creator themselves.
And that's exactly what I mentioned in >>26 and >>28. Wow, you have worse reading comprehension than I do. About free licenses, YouTube in its early days didn't start out with them either and they were founded four years after Creative Commons, and there hasn't been any problems with old videos from 2005-2007 still hosted on the site. In practice this would be the least of anyone's problem, honestly.
>>34 They want to make people feel welcome while they siphon their users' wallets.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-04 10:26
why would you even want to read the comment section, apart from asking for sauce anyways
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-04 10:37
>>36 It's strange, but I think de facto comments elevate the video in a way. We live in a strangely empathetic cyberdystopia where people willingly watch other people consume media (film commentary, video game let's plays). Probably the greatest contribution to the Western canon America ever made was in the form of sitcom laughing tracks--"canned laughter". You probably know what I'm talking about. In a way, it's relieving, the canned laughter. Why? Because the audience laughs on your behalf. It let's you experience that piece of media passively as though you were actively involved; the interplay between audience and media is consummate. YouTube comments are just a logical continuation of that in which that aspect of American media is crowdsourced.
Don't follow? Think about it this way: you watch a video and you see something that you disagree with like a political opinion. You go into the comments and you give your own perspective. Don't you feel relieved afterwards? Doesn't it feel good. Most people are satisfied if someone else does it on their behalf--the key word there is some people. You think all those people writing duplicate comments don't see that their own opinion is echoed in one of the top comments? They do, but they need that relief. And other people will respond to that comment feigning ignorance because they themselves want to reenact the conversation and feel that same release. It's an unspoken but ever-present cycle of continued gratification.
>>39 Your bumping this thread tells us that it does to you, in a way, mean something.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-04 23:19
>>37 I just go through them because sometimes you'll get someone post something interesting in the comments section, but you usually have to wad through a bunch of shit first, like anything else.
>>50 Oh, for fucks sake. You can't seriously expect a shill to be in this fucking hellhole, can you? You just as bad as the "same person" guy, if only he had been doing it unironically. It makes sense to call someone a shill in a hyperbolic way, like they're rooting for another team, have different values, whatever, but this is some /pol/-tier idiocy. You just delegitimatized whatever argument you had in the first place, and it wasn't even that unreasonable of an argument.
Name:
Anonymous2017-12-06 6:36
>>51 After some brief thinking and introspection, I have come to the conclusion that this post I made was cruel, rude, and unwarranted. I want to apologize to everyone for the damages I've made in making that reply. I don't expect you to forgive me, but I do want everyone to know that this is a mistake that I have learned from, and I will not do it again. Best wishes and sincerest apologies.
My i5 4670 is extremely slow on these modern sites. Am I supposed to upgrade my CPU every year or something just so that I can access the web?
Name:
Anonymous2018-07-26 0:50
>>55 My shitty i5 5350U is just fine on modern sites. What OS and browser are you using? What other shit do you have running in the background? What browser add-ons do you have? Is it slow due to your internet connection, or your CPU?