Youtube has fully blocked Invidious
Youtube has fully blocked Invidious
Update 21/09/2024: #4734 (comment) EDIT by @unixfox: The Invidious team is aware of this issue. It appears that it affects all the software using YouTube. Please refrain from commenting if you have...
![[Bug] "This helps protect our community." · Issue #4734 · iv-org/invidious](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ef59241b-3600-41e9-85d6-ad195505b0a4.png?format=webp&thumbnail=256)
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685
EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says
Hello,
Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.
Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won't work anymore.
If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..
This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.
I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don't abuse them since the number is really low.
You're viewing a single thread.
Start asking your favourite content creators to post on PeerTube.
And how are they going to make a living to keep producing videos?
I’d say ask them to join Nebula.
That depends. If they only make a living with YT ads, then it’s going to be hard.
About half the ads I see on YouTube are already within the videos they post. I wonder what the overall ratio is of YouTube ad revenue versus in-video ad revenue.
Are you talking about sponsors? Because yes, that has nothing to do with YT ads.
I guess I forgot things like Patreon which could be a valid option. Although I’m neither a fan of subscribing to specific creators nor am I particularly fond of Patreon.
With Nebula my perception is that I pay a monthly fee and they can figure out who gets what depending on whose videos I watched. I don’t need to be particular in my action on who to support.
Nebula is a good option, but now you've created a paywall. Now only people who can afford it, can watch the content and what is to keep Nebula from upping the price of the subscription?
If ads is out of the question, then content creators need to use sponsors and patrons, if they want to make a living.
People want a fantasy world where all the main content is free and two or three rich sponsors support the creator by sponsoring little extras only available to Patreon supporters. The ends will never meet in the middle on that. It’s a fantasy where people get what they want for free because someone else pays for it. Won’t work. Get out your cash, kids. Cancel your Netflix and put the money into Nebula.
Don't shift the blame on "people wants" as if they're owed by the people. Most people dont even ask for whatever content that is pushed out. And what's more content creator is just a glorified term for online digital panhandlers. And they frame it as if viewers are meant to owe them something all while contributing as little to their efforts that amounts to no significance as possible. Imagine paying someone to make a facial reaction and talking for a bit everytime you passed a panhandler and they call themselves a content creator. It's bogus way to frame or even justify that especially considering they get payed far larger sums comparison to people who actully work for a living while dodging the taxes. And is unlikely any such platform as youtube as well as its big panhandlers are struggling with finances. Youtube gets $15 billion dollars a year in ad revenue and hey greedily continue the push for more ads. And the digital panhandlers calling themselves content creators can make more money in a week than the typical wage slave can in a year.
Interesting thing here:
YouTube's top 3% of channels now attract 90% of total views, up from 67% in 2006. Even among those elite channels, average annual ad revenue is only $16,800 - less than a third of U.S. median household income. For the remaining 97% of YouTubers, reaching even that modest income level is nearly impossible given the platform's increasingly skewed viewership distribution.
An advantage of funding things via a collective like Nebula as opposed to each individual creator managing their own patrons is that new creators can start making bigger, more expensive projects quicker. Even established creators have this advantage, they can take bigger risks on bigger projects with the safety net of a share of the nebula pie.
I don't think a project like The Prince would exist without Nebula, for example.
a collective like Nebula
FYI, Nebula isn't a collective: https://scribe.rip/@cameron-paul/who-actually-owns-nebula-952a1c12d9c0
Thanks for the link, it was a very interesting read. While it is disappointing that it's not actually a collective (assuming this blog post is accurate), having a platform run and owned by 6 creators is still better than YouTube's governance structure, and still has the advantage in having both the capacity and desire to invest in creators.
Nebula is also priced for the masses. You get an entire video service for one reasonable price. Patreon finally has really low priced options like $1 a month but for the longest time it was like $25/month just for the entry level supporter package and I could never justify blowing all that on one creator. I also hated digging around the Patreon app for the sponsor content and dealing with its stupid push notifications.
I find Nebula is a much more sustainable thing. And I still discover new creators there. Because after all I’m not going to be set for life with one or two YT creators. I want to find new things too. Nebula gives you that.
They also can use sponsors in the video, but that only works when you have enough views.
You could also send money via paypal or kofi if you don't like subscriptions, if the creator has it set up.
Yes if a creator’s main living can be shifted into Patreon or their own independent subscription service, THEN you will see them move off of YT because it actually works against them at that point. Mark Spagnuolo aka The Wood Whisperer has made this transition. He’s been around years (decades?) with awesome quality woodworking content. He’s found independent sponsorships. He’s created his own subscription service and takes direct payments but also uses platforms like Patreon. He plays the social media game very well. He travels to trade shows and keeps up with a podcast. He is the gold standard for what it takes a creator to move off of YT and still make a living IMO. His wife is a driving force behind making the business work and I think it’s a full time job for her too and probably a staff of employees. Mark used YT in the early years to build an audience but he does very little at all on YT nowadays.
He also has very little out there now that is free 🤷♂️
You can’t have it both ways
Remember when people posted on YouTube for fun? It's only when it became a viable business that the platform turned to shit.
All the people I watch on youtube make the majority of their money on patreon or twitch. Youtube is way too heavy handed with demonitization and copyright strikes to be a trutsworthy income source.
Nebula is cool and all, but at the end of the day, it's still a commercial platform, and those do tend to enshittify and depend a lot on externalities.
As creators grow more dependent on Nebula, Sam and the team of original Nebula creators can wield more power and change the rules.
They already dictate the kind of content that is allowed - for example, Second Thought, one of the original creators behind Nebula, was asked to leave as he doesn't agree to change public stance on Israeli-Palestinian conflict (he is pro-Palestine). This has suddenly left him without a source of revenue necessary for the production to expand, and has put him into debt.
Solution? Probably independent sponsorships that would go both on YouTube and PeerTube videos. Or a creator reward system like in Lbry/Odysee. Something that would allow to reward creators without going full commercial.
They can still post on YouTube.
It might take a tiny bit of their revenue away but I doubt it would make much of a dent, especially for creators that run mostly on patreon anyway.
Patreon and all the other services creators have at their disposal already.
Don't think most Youtubers can make a living these days solely on YT as revenue, and are already exploring other avenues.
Direct payment to creators seems like the most simple and efficient method.
Paying Nebula subscriber here 🙋♂️
I can’t stand hearing people whine about wanting everything for free and how DARE people try to make a living so they can eat in between making videos!!!
I just want the videos no creator makes money on. I expect thats about 50% at least. Let’s start there. Put them in the Library of Congress and YouTube will be free to enshittify themselves into oblivion without complaint.
or odysee ig but i cannot find a good peertube instance i can post in
What are your criteria for a good instance? I host one myself, so genuinely curious.
The age limit yeah I think the peertube instances on their site follow the gdpr
Yea, a minimum of 13 years old is pretty common. Also something I agree with, as I don’t think kids under 13 should be on social media.
talking about most of them have a minimum of 16 but 13 is fair honestly its everywhere but i am 14
It's 13 years on mine, if interested: peertube.wtf
Yeah i already signed up but my videos require approval i registered before this reply
They have been approved :)
Ty
And then watch the peertube instance die. See also: https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/5783
Civvie 11 is a old head. How do I convince him?
What have you tried so far?
on which instance?
Tilvids.com is a good start. Fx The Linux Experiment is there.
Otherwise, I host peertube.wtf.
And while we're at it, stop calling them 'content creators'
EDIT: to clarify, my stance on this is that 'content creator' devalues the human endeavour behind a piece of work (or content, if you will). Instead it's just slop for the machine, and who cares what it is as long as it gets numbers, right?
What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?
Do we need a general term? Someone who uploads their videos to a video platform is probably a "video producer".
So what should we say when discussing people who make video, audio, text media?
I see their point about "content", where, on YouTube, for example, it devalues the videos as subordinate to YouTube as a platform, but I think as people use the word "content" it loses that connotation.
video → video producer
audio → musician, podcaster, … depending on the type of audio
text media → author
So what word should we use when describing all of those people in one group?
I don't have a very good answer to that either tbh; do we really need to do that so often?
We've been doing it often enough that we've adopted a term for it, yes.
Time wasters.
!!!!!
Well, we start by referring ta work not as "content", but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.
... Which is a type of content.
There's a lot of content that doesn't fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.
But don't you think it's a bit reductionist? We read books, not analogue text content. We eat meals, not nutritional content. We listen to songs, not rhythmic euphoria content. I don't think it's about commercial concerns - in fact, the term 'content' to refer to anything and everything is the 'commercial' way of putting it.
Someone hitting 'record' on a microphone and jamming on a guitar is still music. Why should we treat video any differently?
It's a technical term, we may not use it in everyday conversation, but it is the correct term.
Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣
His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it's called content for a reason.
"Bruh" is not a strong opener to an argument
Bruh 💀
I'll take the name Content Creator over Influencer any day.
Why? What else would we call them?
To answer the "why", it's because the word "content" is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons... it's all just this generic "content" slop that's just there to feed the machine
What a strange opinion.
It's not that strange, I have a friend who literally said the same thing today in reference to one of his favourite channels shutting down. He preferred to call the stuff on this channel art, rather than content. I agree with the person above too, the term has always bugged me. It makes it sound so mass produced, like your job is to just produce meaningless "content" for people to mindlessly consume. And to be honest, that's exactly what the mainstream YouTube culture is about.
I mean, you don't call it whatever you like, but content is the technical definition of it.
I agree with this a lot. I really do not like the term "content". It is like going to a recipe for some "slop", like using a term that is just a catch all for everything tossed on a plate.
Art is great. Movies, music are also fine terms. And so is simply saying they made a video. Watering it all down to the term "content" is just so boring and mind numbing.
Not really. The term "content creator" is corporate speak. Google's ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It's not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation's binary world view.
Words is funny sometimes.
Call them what they truely are. Digital panhandlers
That's pretty insulting, a lot of what YouTube creators do takes real skill, and it's a full time job for many.
In the past maybe, but certainly not these days. It's overglorified corporate money grab propaganda, that goes around shamelessy guilt tripping viewers when truth is spoken. Much of these so-called content creators do not much else than making face react videos to something they saw and just talk about their likes or dislikes. They get paid lots just to make a soy-jack face and shitty clickbaits. The amount of money some them get paid is large sums insane for little efforts in proportion to what worth it actually ought to be. There people out there putting real efforts and labor to contributions to society to keep it running that paid squat in comparison. Its sad really. Go ahead downvote me, it doesn't change the truth i speak.
Entertainers. Show women/men.
Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.
Entertainer isn't a label I'd necessarily apply to educational content, for example.
Then call them educators, or presenters... teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
Yes it's much better to use
"comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls"
... than...
"content creators".
If you find someone that fits all those categories, I wouldn't begrudge you that
What do you have against creators as a label? I don't really see these difference myself.
Or just call them Content creators, recognize they don't really produce value for anyone but YT's grab on the attention economy and start living in the real world.
Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn't call an entertainer. That's why "content creator" is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno "medical" exploitation film
Right. Call them youtubers! Wait...
Male/female adult online entertainer?