My New Youtube Channel BANNED!

[EEVblog]

[jpc]

When you said your new channel was banned and then read out the reason the first thought that entered my head was that it might have been because of the format and name of the new blog, i.e. with Discover in the name and hence the deceptive part of the reason. For while I don't know how fussed Discovery Channel would be about channel names that bear some passing resemblance to theirs I know other main stream media and entertainment sites tend to be quite heavy handed about such things. But no doubt we'll find out soon enough but it is typical of Youtube, just shoot first and screw asking any questions at all.

[tautech]

Unbelievable Dave, treated like you're a learner or something not somebody with ~1K YT vids over how many years ? 

[hendorog]

EEVdiscover looks to be up and working to me. Not sure if it has been restored rather quickly, or they have a weird definition of 'banned' and 'terminated' at Youtube...

Edit; just read the other thread, so they got it back up smartly. Seems google ain't got their smartest bot working on detecting scams...

[Sonny_Jim]

EEVdiscover looks to be up and working to me. Not sure if it has been restored rather quickly, or they have a weird definition of 'banned' and 'terminated' at Youtube...

Edit; just read the other thread, so they got it back up smartly. Seems google ain't got their smartest bot working on detecting scams...

The channel is there, but with no videos.

[Cyberdragon]

Crap! Posted a new thread right after I posted my joke in the old one!

Well, it applies here too so double the funny.

Sometimes I feel that Youtube's servers should get hit by lightning and go

[EEVblog]

Yep, it's back up now, all videos there it seems

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkGvUEt8iQLmq3aJIMjT2qQ

[jpc]

Quote from: evb149 on Today at 03:24:14

...Don't create a "monster" and then complain that you got eaten by it.  Take control of your own media / service while you still can and expect the worst but hope for the best if you're including needless middlemen and "cloud" services in the mix.

I don't disagree with regard to monopolies but what you say about taking control is fine if you're just running a site with a few hundred or so members downloading or streaming the odd few videos per day. However, with the popularity of Dave's sites, just maintaining such a site would be a full time job for at least one someone, let alone the cost of other resources such as bandwidth etc etc. For all its faults, and I have little time for the way they react in circumstances like these, Youtube does at least allow a creator to just concentrate on content creation leaving the rest of the hassle of publishing to them.

[Brumby]

Ah - It's back!

 


Just out of curiosity - did YouTube give an explanation as to what happened?

[Cyberdragon]

Yep, it's back up now, all videos there it seems

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkGvUEt8iQLmq3aJIMjT2qQ

Looks like that guy finally figured out what he was supposed to do with that fire extinguisher.

[Simon]

I wish they would put more effort into banning the scammers with their free energy crap. If you keep clicking through technology videos the suggestions eventually lead to one.

[FrankBuss]

I wish they would put more effort into banning the scammers with their free energy crap. If you keep clicking through technology videos the suggestions eventually lead to one.

Why should Youtube ban these channels? Usually they are just crackpots who don't hurt others and they should have the right to ridicule themselves. And even if they try to sell something, this will be a good lesson for people who buy this crap. But maybe Youtube should add a red warning below such selling videos: "attention: because of the laws of physics, this device won't work as advertised" and with a link to the Simpsons clip "in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics".

[Simon]

Don't hurt others? We live in a society of people hurt by ignorance and misinformation plus they are just making money off the adds.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[FrankBuss]

Usually there are some useful comments for such videos. And where would you draw the line for banning videos? Would you ban religious crap, too?

[wraper]

Why should Youtube ban these channels? Usually they are just crackpots who don't hurt others and they should have the right to ridicule themselves. And even if they try to sell something, this will be a good lesson for people who buy this crap.

Don't think so. Many of those who buy that crap will never learn it was a scam.

[Simon]

Warm fraud is fraud. And i extend the definition to include being defrauded of time. At the end of the day you have to believe someone if you are to learn but the line between reality and false i formation has become hard to determine.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[EEVblog]

Ah - It's back!
 
Just out of curiosity - did YouTube give an explanation as to what happened?

Nope 

[Brumby]

That's helpful.   

[Cyberdragon]

Warm fraud is fraud. And i extend the definition to include being defrauded of time. At the end of the day you have to believe someone if you are to learn but the line between reality and false i formation has become hard to determine.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Doesn't youtube have a policy against scams and fraud? If they are selling anything or promoting a scam then techically, yes, they should be banned. If not, can't bust them.

P.S. this gave me a new tagline idea...

[Simon]

If we replaced morals and common decency with laws everyone would complain. You can't legislate for everything but telling lies seems to be completely acceptable these days.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[ElektronikLabor]

The same thing happened to one of my videos two months ago.
YouTube deleted the video without any warning and only with the same general statement.
They even warned me, that if I violate their guidelines again, they will delete my whole account; but I don't even know what kind guidelines I supposed to have violated! 

The video was online again after two hours without any excuse and without any explanation. 

Every time I upload a video, I have that fear that it gets deleted again 

[madires]

My guess is that whoever implemented the algorithm finding duplicated videos forgot to add a simple check for the uploader's account (same account -> ok / different accounts -> fishy). It's obvious that YouTube have to automate everything to deal with the gazillions of videos, but they should put more effort into reducing false positives. Things like this banned channel are embarrassing for YouTube. Playing with AI and quantum computing they've messed up a simple check

[ElektronikLabor]

My guess is that whoever implemented the algorithm finding duplicated videos forgot to add a simple check for the uploader's account (same account -> ok / different accounts -> fishy).

I think they implemented such an algorithm, but the other way around. There are a lot of accounts on YouTube that upload videos from other channels without any problems.
BUT:
Once I uploaded a video and realized that its audio and video on YT were out of sync, although the original video on my PC did not have that problem.
I rendered the video again and uploaded it again without publishing it, only as private video. I wanted to check if that sync problem remains.
The second video was blocked some minutes after uploading!! Even Though it was private and not published!!   

[Simon]

Time for a microsoft and google merger, that way we only have one company to be frustrated with

[Brumby]

   Oh ... that is an instant headache!

[Nauris]

Quote from: evb149 on Today at 03:24:14I don't disagree with regard to monopolies but what you say about taking control is fine if you're just running a site with a few hundred or so members downloading or streaming the odd few videos per day. However, with the popularity of Dave's sites, just maintaining such a site would be a full time job for at least one someone, let alone the cost of other resources such as bandwidth etc etc. For all its faults, and I have little time for the way they react in circumstances like these, Youtube does at least allow a creator to just concentrate on content creation leaving the rest of the hassle of publishing to them.

I would think that technical side of running such a site is not that big a problem as delivering video content globally anyway needs to be outsourced to someone with local servers around the world. Try Akamai or someone like that. Selling ads is where the hassle is but given Dave's large and focused audience I would think it is possible to cover hosting costs.

[jonovid]

maybe the deep state did think this is our Pine Gap global surveillance satellite ground station dish! 
an artificial intelligence fail! by global big brother. 

[george graves]

The eevblog went full pewdipie   

No but really - why so much youtube drama?  Fix it, and then let us know.  If it's gone for ever, then make a video.

EDIT - I see it's back.  By that thumbnail you'd think the world was ending.  Can we please stop it with all the youtube BS click bait people?

[VK3DRB]

This is the problem. As organisations get too big, their customer service implodes under their own weight. Their "Your call is important to us" websites and phone service are often  useless as udders on a bull . All you want to do it speak to a human.

I remember appalling service from Atmel. I tried everything to find a human with an email to contact for an urgent problem, but to no avail. Atmel ignored all correspondence relating to a problem they created with the supply of touch switch IC's for a major product design. As a result, I dumped Atmel in favour of Microchip in multiple product designs. Lower cost, better service, and better supply reliability. Now Microchip has bought Atmel, maybe the people at Atmel can learn Customer Service 101.

But with Youtube, Dave has no alternative. Maybe Youtube are simply too big for their own good. Hopefully Dave will be able to speak to a human - poof or no poof.

[Simon]

It's not just the size of the company, it's the modern age where talking bullshit or not taking at all is accepted and morals are put aside in favour of following the letter of the law or the lack of it. Here in the UK where you could once talk to trading standards you no can't you have to speak to a charity the government "employ" to give you a shoulder to cry on and if you make a good enough case and know the law yourself you could get them to pass your compaint onto trading standards. the other day when I rang up I had to spell the law out to him and he had to check with someone before coming back on the phone and assurting me that trading standards woul;d be informed, whereupon I get a pathetic template letter from tading standards explaining that if only enough people jumped through the hopes of complaining about law breaking they would take action. That is all legal requirement stuff so when it comes to good old customer service, forget it, you want that part cheap ? well say good buy to custumer service.

[FrankBuss]

But with Youtube, Dave has no alternative. Maybe Youtube are simply too big for their own good. Hopefully Dave will be able to speak to a human - poof or no poof.

He said in the video he knows a human at Youtube. I guess you can contact humans, if the ad income from the channel is higher than the required cost for the human support, otherwise you are screwed.

[Simon]

But with Youtube, Dave has no alternative. Maybe Youtube are simply too big for their own good. Hopefully Dave will be able to speak to a human - poof or no poof.

He said in the video he knows a human at Youtube. I guess you can contact humans, if the ad income from the channel is higher than the required cost for the human support, otherwise you are screwed.

Quite, the ultimate in cost saving. Customer support should be like insurance, you provide a decent service so that few people need support and from a certain amount of your revenue you fund customer support to help anyone that needs it genuinely. In youtubes case anyone could be the next viral blogger that makes them as much money as the blogger if not more. But in huge companies things happen so slowly good or bad that they don't see it until it is too late.

[HAL-42b]

As I said in the previous ban - YouTube is a monopoly that can not be allowed to continue.

We can not let one single company be in control of the majority of video data on the planet.

The solution is not encouraging competitor companies either. What we can do however is for the users to implement their own cloud with their own servers. The most viable approach so far seems to be GNU MediaGoblin. It lets you automatically federate content among multiple users. It is brilliant and I wish more people knew about it.

[Simon]

The problem is youtube offers a non technical solution, you need to offer similarly attractive solutions. The other problem is the myth that all this stuff is for free, it is not. The advertisers just add the costs to the products we buy. It would be easier if there was a system where you just pay for the content you want and that would be easier on larger platforms than everyone on their own.

[HAL-42b]

I agree, but the non-technical solution needs to be pioneered, and there is nobody better suited to do that than technical people.

There is a misconception that the solution is technical. Not true. The technical aspects are already being done by Open Source programming folk, to whom we are all in debt. The problem is one of awareness and changing the existing habits. We can get rid of all this nonsense by just doing things a bit differently.


I too agree that this is not free. The content creator needs to at least rent a server. However several content creators could pool their resources or federate their servers. Also the options for ad revenue and other types of monetization are still available.

Last but not least the MediaGoblin sharing method can be expanded by bittorrent type of sharing and local caching, which distributes the cost of data to the users/subscribers.  Win win win as I see it.

[Simon]

I agree, but the non-technical solution needs to be pioneered, and there is nobody better suited to do that than technical people.

There is a misconception that the solution is technical. Not true. The technical aspects are already being done by Open Source programming folk, to whom we are all in debt. The problem is one of awareness and changing the existing habits. We can get rid of all this nonsense by just doing things a bit differently.


I too agree that this is not free. The content creator needs to at least rent a server. However several content creators could pool their resources or federate their servers. Also the options for ad revenue and other types of monetization are still available.

Last but not least the MediaGoblin sharing method can be expanded by bittorrent type of sharing and local caching, which distributes the cost of data to the users/subscribers.  Win win win as I see it.

Yes if people have to be convinced to make the leap. Dave once did a video on why he would not use vimeo. You see the one big problem lies with the consumer that cares little for ethics and morals and just want's it all now for free. I'd happily scrap the adverts and pay for the content I watch. I don't watch TV or pay a license but if youtube gave me the option of paying a monthly fee and no adds I would. I am aware they are experimenting with this but I wonder why we have heared no more of it....... free is not free but if it looks like it's free people prefer it.

[David Hess]

I don't disagree with regard to monopolies but what you say about taking control is fine if you're just running a site with a few hundred or so members downloading or streaming the odd few videos per day. However, with the popularity of Dave's sites, just maintaining such a site would be a full time job for at least one someone, let alone the cost of other resources such as bandwidth etc etc.

I would think that technical side of running such a site is not that big a problem as delivering video content globally anyway needs to be outsourced to someone with local servers around the world. Try Akamai or someone like that.

When I was looking into the requirements to replace various technical forums which supported email access, I concluded that using bittorrent to distribute large files was the way to go.  Direct download links might be desirable as a backup but that is what traffic shaping is for.

[HAL-42b]

I'd happily scrap the adverts and pay for the content I watch.

There is no need. Creators still can put ads to their content if they wish. They just will have to deal with advertisers directly, which is how Dave deals with ads on the forum anyway.

Overzealous ads might reduce popularity as usual but I see this as a good thing. This will likely weed out a lot of copycat 'in it just for the money' type of clickbait creators.

[Simon]

I meant things like automated google ads, directly negotiated ads are of course the best way.

[Richard Crowley]

I don't watch TV or pay a license but if youtube gave me the option of paying a monthly fee and no adds I would. I am aware they are experimenting with this but I wonder why we have heared no more of it.

I have been using YouTube Red since they first advertised it.  $5/month is wonderful to skip all those stupid (and LOUD) ads.

OTOH, on the occasions where I use YouTube not logged-in,  I have often seen an ad for something that I found really useful, so I have a rather split opinion.  So, I guess the times when the YT targeting algorithm worked properly, they showed me ads for quite interesting things.

Presumably Vimeo it out because no monetization?

[RGB255_0_0]

The only way is to monetise your own solution, something LinusTechTips is doing. But even Linus could not be able to bankroll his own CDS without the free hardware he has received and hours spent on the back end by Luke et al. He also won't disclose whether it will be profitable once live but there will be a break even point and he has enough fanboys to get it that way.

With the way the Ad distribution is going on YouTube, it wouldn't surprise me if people move away gradually with Patreon supporting producers. Then the issue is fragmentation...

[HAL-42b]

The solution to fragmentation is federation. How would that work nobody knows, will have to be figured out.

The closest parallel I can imagine is something like the Webrings of the 90's.

In the most basic form I imagine the content creators sharing space on their own server in exchange for space in another creator's server in another country.

[Simon]

In the most basic form I imagine the content creators sharing space on their own server in exchange for space in another creator's server in another country.

The ultimate solution, full coverage of any demand profile

[EEVblog]

Quote from: evb149 on Today at 03:24:14I don't disagree with regard to monopolies but what you say about taking control is fine if you're just running a site with a few hundred or so members downloading or streaming the odd few videos per day. However, with the popularity of Dave's sites, just maintaining such a site would be a full time job for at least one someone, let alone the cost of other resources such as bandwidth etc etc. For all its faults, and I have little time for the way they react in circumstances like these, Youtube does at least allow a creator to just concentrate on content creation leaving the rest of the hassle of publishing to them.

I would think that technical side of running such a site is not that big a problem as delivering video content globally anyway needs to be outsourced to someone with local servers around the world. Try Akamai or someone like that. Selling ads is where the hassle is but given Dave's large and focused audience I would think it is possible to cover hosting costs.

For those who think Youtubers can just change to another site or host the video server yourself etc are missing the entire point of Youtube.
It is the world's 2nd biggest search engine, and the world's biggest video search engine by many orders of magnitudes. When you want to find and watch a video on anything, the only place you turn to is Youtube.
Half of my daily views come from searches, and almost the entirety of my existing and continual new audience comes from being visible and searchable on Youtube.

There is a reason why there practically isn't anyone making a living making original Facebook video content, or Vimeo content etc.
Twitch might be the only exception, but it's still zero competition to Youtube.

Good luck trying to convince advertisers you have xx thousands of viewers on your own private server, or vimeo etc, no one cares, you become invisible and will almost certainly fade away as will any audience who switched with you.

[HAL-42b]

For the users instead of subscribing on YT they could subscribe directly to the content creator (via RSS for example) so when new content is released the subscriber's client automatically downloads the content via torrent and starts seeding it to others, thus minimizing the bandwidth costs for the creator.

[Simon]

the problem is fitting with what the masses want, as Dave says, YT is the goto place and favored by "the one" search engine. I have been going rogue and not using google but I have noticed that the quality of my results are poor. It's sad but a monopoly is nice when they play fair.

[HAL-42b]

For those who think Youtubers can just change to another site or host the video server yourself etc are missing the entire point of Youtube.
It is the world's 2nd biggest search engine, and the world's biggest video search engine by many orders of magnitudes. When you want to find and watch a video on anything, the only place you turn to is Youtube.

Google is also a monopoly for search service and this is also a bad thing that we are stuck with it.

There are open source peer-to-peer search engines out there. The prime example being YaCy http://yacy.net/en/index.html

If federated content becomes popular the federated search service will also be popular.


edit: I've ran YaCy on my personal computer and it did work, as in it did crawl the net and was searchable. So the technology is already out there. The only thing lacking is the will to give it a try.

[EEVblog]

For the users instead of subscribing on YT they could subscribe directly to the content creator (via RSS for example) so when new content is released the subscriber's client automatically downloads the content via torrent and starts seeding it to others, thus minimizing the bandwidth costs for the creator.

Of course they can, but as I mentioned above, that is entirely not the point.
It's like being say a successful online magazine and then saying, bugger it, we are now only going to be able to available via the newsagent or direct snail mail postage now.
Some audience will follow, but you'll eventually fade away into insignificance.

[Simon]

Google is also a monopoly for search service and this is also a bad thing that we are stuck with it.

There are open source peer-to-peer search engines out there. The prime example being YaCy http://yacy.net/en/index.html

If federated content becomes popular the federated search service will also be popular.

I would use it but where is the download link ?

[HAL-42b]

Of course they can, but as I mentioned above, that is entirely not the point.

I just felt the need to mention what is out there and what is possible. I do not pretend to have solution to your current problem Dave. You know what you're doing.

But if I was a content creator I would definitely try to run an autonomous CDN besides my regular YT account, and I would mention this here and there hoping to get more creators into it.

At least I wouldn't be willingly handing Google the monopoly on a silver platter.

[HAL-42b]

I would use it but where is the download link ?

The right panel.

Also your Linux distro probably already has it.

[EEVblog]

I just felt the need to mention what is out there and what is possible. I do not pretend to have solution to your current problem Dave. You know what you're doing.

I don't have a problem 

But if I was a content creator I would definitely try to run an autonomous CDN besides my regular YT account, and I would mention this here and there hoping to get more creators into it.
At least I wouldn't be willingly handing Google the monopoly on a silver platter.

A lot of my content is on Vimeo also, and every numbered video I have ever made is on my server, albeit in a 640x360 podcast version:
http://www.eevblog.org
In fact some people know that videos typically get uploaded there before they are released.
I also tried a torrent server once, it sucked.

[HAL-42b]

A lot of my content is in Vimeo also, and every numbered video I have veer made is on my server, albeit in a 640x360 podcast version:

Exactly, If more creators started doing the same thing you could start pooling resources which would reduce costs and increase popularity.

And the technical solution to let you do so already exists.

I'm not a content creator but even I could set up a server just to start the ball rolling.

[Simon]

I'm not a content creator but even I could set up a server just to start the ball rolling.

And there lies your problem, another person able to do it different that is not going to use it. There will be plenty of people that make content but don't have your knowledge.

[mcinque]

Anyway the point is, you've got a perfectly fine web server and you know how to use it.  Rather than contribute to youtube's success while they increasingly inhibit yours maybe reconsider why you'd even want to do business with such a company / "service".

Running your own (single?) server with their bandwidth is unpractical. You would need a cluster with a huge connection to provide proper (HD) video streaming.

[Simon]

Which is why it has to be done across multiple servers and is only practical if people club together, i wonder how hosting companies started out.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

[HAL-42b]

This is where the MediaGoblin and it's federated content sharing comes in. It let's you share resources with other users.

Video in the link:

https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/christopher-webber-federation-and-gnu-2b47/

[Hensingler]

A glimpse of the future. Google's machine learning and AI in action.

Some people think stuff like this will be driving cars in a couple of years.

[David Hess]

For those who think Youtubers can just change to another site or host the video server yourself etc are missing the entire point of Youtube.
It is the world's 2nd biggest search engine, and the world's biggest video search engine by many orders of magnitudes. When you want to find and watch a video on anything, the only place you turn to is Youtube.
Half of my daily views come from searches, and almost the entirety of my existing and continual new audience comes from being visible and searchable on Youtube.

There is a reason why there practically isn't anyone making a living making original Facebook video content, or Vimeo content etc.
Twitch might be the only exception, but it's still zero competition to Youtube.

Good luck trying to convince advertisers you have xx thousands of viewers on your own private server, or vimeo etc, no one cares, you become invisible and will almost certainly fade away as will any audience who switched with you.

The biggest reason I prefer Youtube videos is simply because they work and I can easily download them for local viewing albeit limited to 720p.

Invariably when I do a Google search and find the video that I want on a site other than Youtube, it either does not work or works very poorly.  My experience has been so bad in this respect that I usually do not even bother with video that is not on Youtube unless it is a direct download link and who does that?  And even on Youtube, I download first and watch using local video player unless it is trivial and short content.

Oh, but the porn video sites work fine.  Liveleak works fine also.  Why can't Vimeo and all of the video content sites other than Youtube and Liveleak figure it out?  The only thing they have figured out is not to put a "buffering..." message up.

[HAL-42b]

Thanks evb149 for the wonderful exposition. I could not have distilled the matter more succinctly.

Yes indeed the web of today carries the shared memory of mankind and deleting a video is the same thing as burning a book. Nobody should have the monopoly to do so in this day and age. Librarians call the unintentional loss of information "Web Rot" and are trying to figure out ways to deal with it. The intentional censoring of information on the other hand is much more serious, but we don't have a name for it yet.

The RSS/Atom feeds can be made an order of magnitude more useful if integrated with a torrent client. This way when new content is posted the client automatically downloads it and starts seeding to other users, even if you don't watch it immediately. The effectiveness is evident from movie streaming applications like PopcornTime et. al.

In the above application a file with 1000 seeders has MASSIVE bandwidth and can be disseminated globally no problem whatsoever. So a content creator like Dave having 1000 RSS subscribers is roughly comparable to his YT channel in the amount of bits reaching the audience. All this with minimal cost to Dave.

The keyword search and human based semantic classification is actually easy. Just look at how Reddit works. There are niche communities with very specific interest who constantly share and discuss content relevant to them. The only problem is that the flow of information is one way only and there is no way of feeding it back to the creator. Reddit also has its own rudimentary monetization scheme which they do not intent to make extensible to the original content creator. Another thing that can be improved.

[EEVblog]

A lot of my content is in Vimeo also, and every numbered video I have veer made is on my server, albeit in a 640x360 podcast version:

Exactly, If more creators started doing the same thing you could start pooling resources which would reduce costs and increase popularity.

It's never going to be popular.

And the technical solution to let you do so already exists.
I'm not a content creator but even I could set up a server just to start the ball rolling.

To solve what problem?
There is no problem.
There is nothing stopping content creators uploading to any and all of the CDN's like Youtube, Vimeo, Vid.me, etc etc (even Facebook), if redundancy and viewer choice is your issue.
Fact is no one cares about anything other than Youtube.
But if you want to do that sort of thing, then I'm not here to discourage it, just pointing out what the real world cares about.

[Brumby]

In practical terms, these 'alternatives' will be seen by a great many as an exercise in reinventing the wheel.

Many content producers wouldn't have the skills and/or the interest in travelling down a path that requires them to put more effort into publishing their work ... yes, even if it meant they bailed out completely.  Another issue is the potential for multiple "standards" in exactly how multiple hosts are configured and accessed.  The list goes on.

Then there are the costs involved in providing an effective service (read bandwidth and capacity).


It may appear to be a solution on paper, but real world issues will be a significant barrier to success.

IMHO.


and there's this....

Fact is no one cares about anything other than Youtube.

[EEVblog]

The RSS/Atom feeds can be made an order of magnitude more useful if integrated with a torrent client. This way when new content is posted the client automatically downloads it and starts seeding to other users, even if you don't watch it immediately. The effectiveness is evident from movie streaming applications like PopcornTime et. al.
In the above application a file with 1000 seeders has MASSIVE bandwidth and can be disseminated globally no problem whatsoever. So a content creator like Dave having 1000 RSS subscribers is roughly comparable to his YT channel in the amount of bits reaching the audience. All this with minimal cost to Dave.

I've been talking about dropping the podcast RSS version for years now, and have said I may drop it at any time.
It's three extra process steps for me just to do it -  separate render, separate FTP server upload, and adding it to the feed.

For the Amp Hour podcast, which is just audio, and 1/10th the bandwidth requirement of video we had to use a professional CDN service designed just for that, LibSyn.

[EEVblog]

In practical terms, these 'alternatives' will be seen by a great many as an exercise in reinventing the wheel.
Many content producers wouldn't have the skills and/or the interest in travelling down a path that requires them to put more effort into publishing their work ... yes, even if it meant they bailed out completely.  Another issue is the potential for multiple "standards" in exactly how multiple hosts are configured and accessed.  The list goes on.
Then there are the costs involved in providing an effective service (read bandwidth and capacity).
It may appear to be a solution on paper, but real world issues will be a significant barrier to success.

And all this talk of setting your own CDN or moving to another CDN service like Vimeo etc is only valid for those who already have a large audience and can potentially take some of them with them.
It is not an option for someone starting out, even if they have the best technical skills in the world to implement it.
Even something as huge and ubiquitous as Facebook (and who claim to serve more video than Youtube (which is bullshit, but we'll run with that)), used by more than a billion people a month, count how many people make a full time living making video content on just Facebook. Name one person who is known for making original video content on Facebook. You can't. There are reasons for this.

[strangersound]

I just jumped on my YouTube homepage and EEVdiscover was there with suggested videos.

I was thinking, I like the sound of "EEV Scope" as a name for the new channel. It can still mean the same thing, but it has the cope pun for those in the know. Get the scoop on The Scope.

[HAL-42b]

Fact is no one cares about anything other than Youtube.

Thanks for defending the status quo boys. Thought nobody was going to put a good word in for the poor old status quo. God knows the old girl needs all the help she can get.
<ducks>

I just felt like being rebellious and all that nonsense. I repent. 

[Cyberdragon]

Fact is no one cares about anything other than Youtube.

Thanks for defending the status quo boys. Thought nobody was going to put a good word in for the poor old status quo. God knows the old girl needs all the help she can get.
<ducks>

I just felt like being rebellious and all that nonsense. I repent. 

The problem is diversity leads to confusion. Not only for people to remember what site content was uploaded to (these kind of sites would likely copy each other's looks eventually) if they just happened to watch random videos, but for the uploaders who would have their target audiences split up by multiple sites, meaning they only get a fraction of it. Even if all sites were to become "popular", people would still choose which ones to frequent and ignore others.

[EEVblog]

Fact is no one cares about anything other than Youtube.

Thanks for defending the status quo boys. Thought nobody was going to put a good word in for the poor old status quo. God knows the old girl needs all the help she can get.
<ducks>
I just felt like being rebellious and all that nonsense. I repent. 

Stating a fact does not imply defence or endorsement etc. It's just a fact.

[Brumby]

You can't ignore the status quo.  It has inertia.  Sometimes that inertia is massive.

For any new player, they not only have to deliver a better product in all manner of ways - performance, searching, ease of use and whatever else will be needed to attract patronage - but they need to overcome the inertia in order for it to be adopted.

[Simon]

Google is also a monopoly for search service and this is also a bad thing that we are stuck with it.

There are open source peer-to-peer search engines out there. The prime example being YaCy http://yacy.net/en/index.html

If federated content becomes popular the federated search service will also be popular.

I would use it but where is the download link ?

Another 2 click wonder written by technical poeple for technical people. non of it made any sense and on firing it up the second time it failed to work. If you really want to run a project like lacy then get it onto BOINC so that contributors just link to the project with minimal understanding.

[GreenHW_GUY]

got the notification for the new video today, but want to watch it later, rirgt now i Want to see it but the video has ben taken down, does any one one know why Dave has take this video down.
I remember the video picture was a picture of some PCB see picture from the mail notification. link to the video

[Meltea]

I might be a bit late to the party here, but I just tried to put the new channel into feedly (rss reader) and BuzzFeedBlue channel popped up.

It might have been a hash collision, or database error. Or feedly might have messed up their cache. It is interesting enough for me to register here and post it anyways.

[GreenHW_GUY]

WHY does this happen again !!! does Dave have some change that he take the video down again

[RGB255_0_0]

WHY does this happen again !!! does Dave have some change that he take the video down again

Personal information in the video.