No, no it isnt. It's basically patreon but only for videos. And its owned by Linus Tech Tips...
And its owned by Linus Tech Tips...
Which is a Canadian company located in Vancouver.
Never said it wasn't.
I can't wait for a Canadian Peertube instance.
Linus is that you?
What if we want more than your stuff?
I have a pihole with the ability to block youtube ads fairly well, once my premium subscription is up, in November (I got it because I believed I was actually paying the content creators better with it), I am going to be blocking youtube ads.
Just so no one else gets confused here.
A pi-hole can not block YouTube ads. You need ublock(origin) extension or SmartTube for Android to block YouTube ads.
youTube_ads_4_pi-hole does a fairly good job with my limited testing, I am waiting for my premium subscription to run out in November but when I was not logged in it seemed to do a good job. Not 100% but it does a good job, in again my limited testing.
I though peertube was more appropriate, can start servers local (Canada) but still federated
PeerTube doesn't have a monetization story aside from sponsorships which means that it won't be a real competitor from YouTube. There are lots of "for fun" YouTube channels but what enables so many people to publish so many videos is the fact that they can profit off of them. PeerTube is great, I follow a handful of channels, but it won't be a YouTube competitor until people can actually run a business on it.
There are lots of “for fun” YouTube channels but what enables so many people to publish so many videos is the fact that they can profit off of them.
That's such a double-edge sword.
I have a channel with tens of thousands of followers and nearly 200, long-form content in the educational/healthcare space.
I was creating videos way before I was "allowed" to monetize, and even after, I was not making them so I could profit. No sponsored content. No begging for likes. No paid products. Not even affiliate links.
If my motivation was driven by profit, then the quality of the videos would suffer. And when I see channels that really push hard to monetize, it's off-putting as a viewer, and I'm less interested in what they have to say - even if it might benefit me.
On the flip-side, I know some content creators have to spend a lot of money to create certain content, so they should be able to recoup that somehow.
I personally prefer a donation model, since it keeps things unbiased, with the creator having far more freedom, and it doesn't disrespect users. Even having a shop selling channel merch is a more ethical way to monetize, provided that the channel doesn't become one big ads for the merch store.
Good channels could absolutely make enough through donations to turn their channel into a full-time, paying job. And a donation model would also help to cull channels that create garbage content, AI generated content, and clickbait crap.
Yeah that’s fair. Feel to me like peertube just needs to find a way to monitize the platform. That can also be done from a server by server model. Sorta like every broadcast network runs their own monitization efforts. Either way seems to me that a solution isn’t out of reach and the platform can become quite successful.
How is this a replacement for YouTube? As shitty as YT is, it's still free. With Floatplane You have to pay to watch anything, and you pay to each producer, depending on what you watch? I'd rather just look through Vimeo or something, because this definitely ain't it. A replacement needs to be as easy and as free as Youtube, otherwise it's just another streaming platform.
If I need an account to see my first video, you are not an alternative to YT. As ling as my VPN and adblocker works, I feel fine using YT until somethikg better comes along.
Check out odysee
I love creators hosting their content on more disparate platforms, I would love to see less centralization. But the problem is that these all cost so much. YouTube Premium is $13/month and I get access to a huge variety of channels. LTT on Floatplane is $5/month for one collection of channels (which are available on YouTube, maybe with some bits cut). Corridor Digital is similar at $4/month.
Very few channels actually provide me $5/month worth of value. This is only really reasonable for the biggest fans (which admittedly I am not of either of these). Even if these channels have a few videos a week (maybe LTT is over daily with all of their different programs) that is a lot to pay for little variety.
I understand the problem here. Only a tiny number of users are actually going to sign up anyways, so you need to extract more value from them. Say LTT makes $0.50/month from the average subscriber on YouTube. If they charged $0.50/month for their Floatplane channel they would actually loose money, because the people that sign up on Floatplane are going to be above average subscribers. So they need to charge more to even break even (let's say they value control enough that they aren't looking for increased revenue). But as they raise the price along the curve they are even more heavily filtering for the biggest fans, which were bringing them in top percentile revenue on YouTube, making the problem even worse. This means that these platforms are always going to be priced to profit off the whales, rather than the casual users who enjoy watching some videos from these channels. Maybe in some beautiful feature where publishing on separate platforms becomes normalized this will change, but it is very far in the future and a huge roadblock to getting to that future.
YouTube Premium is $13/month and I get access to a huge variety of channels.
Here's the thing... if you divided up that $13 among all the channels you watch, and gave the creator that amount, they'd be making more than the money that comes to them from YouTube.
As an extreme example, let's say you benefit from 50 unique channels per month. That's around $0.26 each channel ($13 / 50), which is MORE than what YouTube would pay them for your views.
If you only watch 10 channels on a regular basis, that's $1.30 per channel, per month - way, wayyy more than what youtube pays out for a single user per month.
With enough paying simply paying creators pennies per month, they'd make more than enough money to cut out ads, sponsors, and other unsavoury forms of monetization.
Louis Rossman has talked about this a few times, but as someone who has a YouTube channel, I can confirm this to be true.
But that's my point. If these creators on different sites charged between $0.26 and $1.30 I would have subscribed to a bunch of them. But when they are charging $5/month that is quite a different amount to pay. Something that I would only really be considering for my absolute favourites.
Signed up!
