I watched an interesting video from a smaller YT creator a few months back (don't remember who, doesn't really matter) who deleted all their alt media channels and tried to force his small following back on to YT.
They made a long video explaining their rationale. While I didn't agree with it, it was an interesting devil's advocate.
Other than the usual arguments (zero discoverability, more workload to mirror uploads, remembering logins to check multiplatform comments, zero monetization incentive on alt tech, etc), their argument mostly boiled down that if you only have a small audience, it's better to consolidate the community in one place rather than scattering them to the wind as a diaspora across platforms with minimum engagement with each other or the creator directly.
Again, I didn't fully agree, but it was a compelling counternarrative than usual.
There’s the ultimate problem. We accepted the idea of YouTube as a platform. It doesn’t have to be that way. You could have your own website, post your videos to all video hosting services (including YouTube) and engage with your supporters only through your website.
I think it's similar to how the big monopoly sites like X, Reddit & YT have conditioned people to stay within their walled gardens. And killed off all the old Internet forums.
Pretty much any effort I've seen to get fans off Big Tech & on to personal websites have failed. I'm guilty of it myself.
Eh not really. Especially given how often platforms ban people for nothing. My Facebook was banned and I used it to buy things off marketplace and I think I have a picture of my dog I posted. I couldn't get it back.
There's a whole subreddit called banned by Facebook or something iirc, that's a bunch of Normies panicking because gaybook deleted their account cause they can.
I watched an interesting video from a smaller YT creator a few months back (don't remember who, doesn't really matter) who deleted all their alt media channels and tried to force his small following back on to YT.
They made a long video explaining their rationale. While I didn't agree with it, it was an interesting devil's advocate.
Other than the usual arguments (zero discoverability, more workload to mirror uploads, remembering logins to check multiplatform comments, zero monetization incentive on alt tech, etc), their argument mostly boiled down that if you only have a small audience, it's better to consolidate the community in one place rather than scattering them to the wind as a diaspora across platforms with minimum engagement with each other or the creator directly.
Again, I didn't fully agree, but it was a compelling counternarrative than usual.
There’s the ultimate problem. We accepted the idea of YouTube as a platform. It doesn’t have to be that way. You could have your own website, post your videos to all video hosting services (including YouTube) and engage with your supporters only through your website.
I think it's similar to how the big monopoly sites like X, Reddit & YT have conditioned people to stay within their walled gardens. And killed off all the old Internet forums.
Pretty much any effort I've seen to get fans off Big Tech & on to personal websites have failed. I'm guilty of it myself.
Eh not really. Especially given how often platforms ban people for nothing. My Facebook was banned and I used it to buy things off marketplace and I think I have a picture of my dog I posted. I couldn't get it back.
Don't put your eggs in a platform basket.
I thought the same thing watching the guy's treatise.
I think the guy was more of a normie though with vanilla views. They never think the ban hammer will ever come for them.
There's a whole subreddit called banned by Facebook or something iirc, that's a bunch of Normies panicking because gaybook deleted their account cause they can.
Did it work?
TBH, I unsubbed from the guy because I wasn't sure why I was subbed in the first place. Like I said in the OP, can't even recall who it was now.
I also thought nuking all the alt channels was a little excessive. And selfish.