Social media is technology, huh
Two people in this world that you should never get an IOU from: Trump and Musk.
They just don’t pay their bills. It’s not worth the effort.
deleted by creator
Eh… mr Beast is a “your people get in touch with my people” kind of guy, and by people I mean lawyers talking about money.
Substitute “Urges” to “Begs”
Eww…the smell of desperation.
I get why people are doubtful about Musk. I just wanna see YouTube’s monopoly broken and streamers/entertainers get their due. I do not like how YouTube treats content creators. Maybe a competitive alternative is a good thing.
Given that Twitter’s already relatively tiny user base is dwindling, the platform is now account-walled, and Musk is a notorious liar, I doubt any prominent creators are going to even consider cross-posting to Twitter.
A competitive alternative would be great, but Twitter isn’t going to be it.
Yeah, definitely isn’t going to be Twitter.
Musk is too stupid for that.
Twitter’s already relatively tiny user base
Twitter’s MAU count is around 450 million active users. You’re not going to find many bigger user bases.
Where did you get that number from? Best I’ve seen is ~350M and dropping. For reference, Pinterest is ~465M.
Twitter had an outsized impact but it’s not at FB or Insta or Youtube numbers, and it’s already struggling to keep working under the load of mostly text and static images.
Here’s one that puts it at 550mil MAU:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
Is it as big as YouTube or Facebook or Instagram? No. It’s still one of the biggest user bases on the internet though.
Also how has twitter been struggling to keep working?
Interesting. Looking into the sources that Statista uses, you find this graph that paints a very different picture.
Also how has twitter been struggling to keep working?
Did you not hear about all the limiting they had in place recently? 600 or 1000 posts viewable per day for non-paying users, 6000 for paying users. I know the official reason given was to (somehow) limit data scraping, but come on, we all know that’s bullshit. And outside of that, there have been a bunch of issues with outages, basic things like search breaking, etc. It’s a platform in decline.
That graph literally says “significant anomalies in source data”, so they’re even saying that it’s not an accurate picture though.
Rate limiting isn’t “struggling to keep working”. It isn’t like it was crashing due to people using it too much. Saying “we know their reason is bullshit” doesn’t make it true. Nothing indicated that they were having trouble with uptime or performance.
Yes, it says there are anomalies—that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that it’s unusual. Almost like there was a moron in charge of the company who was making erratic changes to its infrastructure and driving a mass exodus of users. And even if that number is wrong (it probably is) it’s not like the previous number isn’t heavily outdated. There have been massive changes to Twitter since then, it would be stupid to assume old data is still accurate.
It was crashing in part because Twitter was DDOSing itself. Twitter rate-limited itself on purpose because they were fucking their own system up, but they gave a BS reason because it would be embarrassing for Musk to have to admit he fired too many people and the skeleton crew that’s left can’t keep up with his stupid decisions.
Remember, this is a website that primarily serves short text-only posts and was largely stable when it was bought. It’s not rocket science, and yet Musk’s still managing to make it look hard.
Twitter is not account-walled. Have you been keeping up with the news?It hasn’t been making headlines this time (they’re only talking about Threads and the jet tracker guy), but it’s back to needing a login.
Oh, in that case I’m the one who hasn’t been keeping up. Damn.
I just tried it. Twitter won’t let me view pages without an account. What do you mean exactly?
What fucking wild times we live in. This whole Elon vs Zuck thing about copyright. And how I see more people want Zuck to win. And now, we’ve got Musk trying to go after YouTube.
It’s a mess.
I in no way want Musk to win. I just think the whole series of events is wild
Yup, Elon is such an ass that I’m cheering for Mark Zuckerberg of all people. What crazy times we live in
I feel like bezos should jump into this to increase the drama level.
Actually. What has he even done recently? Other than, ya know, bring part of THAT group. Isn’t he just doing rockets or something? I haven’t heard about him for a while.
The last two things I remember were him getting legally divorced and then popping champagne as William Shatner was trying to talk.
I never thought I’d see people rushing to and championing and saying how much they love a new Zuckerberg owned platform like they have with threads lol. Everyone’s always saying they want facebook to die, and how they won’t use anything with a facebook account, and so on…and then bam, 100 million users in a few days lol
They got users by signing people up automatically.
Tired of hearing about Threads, Zuckerberg, and Elon, can we talk about something else on Lemmy or what.
It’s just one of those things. It’d big news, so people will talk about it. It’ll die down.
When people are rooting for the Zuck instead of for you, that’s when you know that you’ve fucked up beyond any doubt.
Doubtful it’s the understatement of the century.
It would take a lot to beat YouTube though, and honestly I’m not sure it can be done given the extreme cost and general lack of revenue.
Twitter ran by musk is unlikely to be our savior
Any competition is good competition. If he offers competitive earnings to youtube, youtube is pressured to improve their product or pay for views.
I see someone was hypnotised by penguinz0
Srsly though end these hollow phrases.
Competition is not always good. Competition between wage labour drives down wages, competition between countries for capital drives down taxes for the rich. Half of all competition is a thing called “a race to the bottom”
WRT social media networks competition is first and foremost pretty dumb, there is no use for thousands of social networks with 10 users each. A single social medium that is participatory and has regulating mechanisms is way more beneficial (you’re using one that tries to live up to that btw)
Whatever little good comes out of the competition between two asshole oligarchs is more than made up be them keeping dominance over peoples means of communication and their attention and selling every datapoint to
Honestly we have to reflect on the propaganda we’re told in school and don’t just repeat empty phrases.
Just a couple minutes ago I saw the phrase “where there is demand there will be supply” applied to pirates that crack games who are obviously not paid.
There is lots of demand without supply. Peoples starvation is not met by demand, but the demand for facelifts and botox will always be supplied. Bc supply is only created where capital is willing to pay for it
Competition is not always good.
So you think video streaming services should be in a monopoly?
You think that will be the best for the consumer and content creators?
I disagree.
Isn’t Youtube doing that already? I see way more ads nowadays than I used to, when I’m not using ublock origin (yay non-Android smart tv). Also blocking users with adblockers, etc.
Competition is not always good.
So you think video streaming services should be in a monopoly?
You think that will be the best for the consumer and content creators?
I disagree.
Hey just fyi, you responded to the wrong comment :)
haha new to lemmy, thanks!
Do the patreon and microtransactions models actually work for creators these days, are they good alternatives to yt?
especially since the closest competitor rn is twitch which is an absolute shithole
As someone less familiar with twitch, what’s making it a shithole?
Twitch is overly hostile with its own subscriber base and doesn’t pay nearly as much as YouTube. {Recent business decisions](https://digiday.com/marketing/how-twitch-lost-its-grip-on-and-way-with-the-streaming-community/) are really causing it to bleed streamers to other platforms, mostly YouTube.
elon musk purchased it and laid off a ton of staff over time, leading twitter to be very poorly moderated and also have many technical glitches after thatedit: oops I’m an idiot. I thought that said twitter.
Twitch is owned by Amazon, Twitter is owned by Musk.
Thanks. I misread that comment. I appreciate the clarification.
Twitch takes 50% revenue. Youtube takes 30%. Twitch has an overly strict TOS to stay relatively kid-friendly. Twitch recently tried to limit content creators from showcasing sponsors in their own videos, but I think they backed away from that plan. Basically, it’s at the fully enshittified stage at this point.
Apparently, there’s a new twitch competitor, Kick, backed by an online gambling company, which I even worse. They have their content creators do gambling streams where the odds are modified to make it look like their games pay out more. And they explicitly promote bigots and fascists on their platform.
Is that how much he’s earning per video?
How reassuring, “should”.
Full self driving next year™
You better buy now before we stop selling cars because of all the revenue they’ll be making as an automated taxi. But if you buy now you can make money too. It’s not capricious spending, it’s an investment.
Also he’s very concerned about AI while trying to replace every taxi driver with it.
His only concern is that he needs time to catch up - hence the 6 month request.
Just hitting all the buttons.
With a shitty video player like Twitter’s, let there be views first before talking about “earnings per view”.
cringe.gif
One could ask them: „How come you’re not posting on our platform? Can we improve anything?”
Or you can go the Elon Musk way.
Is it PR/purely for publicity? Is it a spontaneous thought posted as a Tweet? Is it an offer with public visibility for increased impact? Is it underhanded trying to get more publishers to join the platform? Is it desperate try to get them or anyone as a publisher? It’s certainly ambiguous and unprofessional. But that’s nothing new.
Very pathetic Elon. It will not make any sense to the man who build an empire on YouTube to post videos on Twitter or any other social media. It’s not about the money, it’s about braniding. Mr Beast is a Youtube icon. And it would not be a suprise I’d they have some contracts with YouTube.
If Elon wants to compete he needs to focus on new talents who use Twitter as their main and only plataform, similar to what Twitch does. Probably he should give Vines a second chance. I think it was Twitter error to close it. Now shorts and streaming are on demand.
Trying to steal other platforms talents is just nonsense.
No one would watch videos in GARBAGEp resolution when 1080p is right behind a corner on YT
I deliberately lower streaming quality on everything I watch. If the thing is really worth it I might watch it in 720p. Everything else goes in 480p.
The push for 4k is a level of consumerism I’m not comfortable with, having the world going to shit as fast as it’s going.
deleted by creator
Owning capitalists by giving them the same amount of money for worse service on purpose.
I don’t really care for 4K. The diminishing returns isn’t worth it, and it’s really turning into a bandwidth problem for the major players that offer it for free.
But, I can’t get behind 480p. That shit is garbage resolution, especially on a TV or computer.
Even I don’t get where you’re coming from and I won’t replace the 720p TV in my bedroom because I don’t want to deal with some smart TV crap and the resolution is fine because it’s a small TV.
But intentionally not watch it at low resolution because fuck society? Makes no sense to me.
I watch everything in 480p just because my internet is crap.
I perceived my 32mbps wifi as minimal requieement in 2012 -_-
Great. Try 32mbps in 2023, with 3-5+ people streaming off it, and/or gaming on it, at once.
Fuck 32mbps, try 16mbps
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=FatHLHG2uGY&t=2s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Low quality gang rise up!
Mostly 360p myself, varying depending on how much internet is available and whether or not I gotta read text in the video
Why do you lower resolution below 1080p? Does your screen not support it or connection bandwidth?
I use only 1080p because my phone screen and pc monitor support it and my eyes still percive difference between 720p and 1080p
I do it too. I do it because our internet sucks and bandwidth is precious. 4k makes everything stutter. Especially if you have more than one thing in the house streaming at once.
That is a technical reason I can agree with.
Dumbing down 4k ‘just because’ is stupid still.
I do it too because, although I have great bandwidth, 4k on YouTube (specifically) usually stutters for me and I’d rather just watch something unimpeded at a lower resolution. Not that fussed about resolution on a YouTube vid.
4K, 8K, 1,293K is overrated gimmicks to me. I want to see actual improvements, not just how big the resolution can get and how much detail. The last thing that wow’ed me like that were movie theater screens. I’m not really that impressed with it. Also 60FPS shows and things are so off-putting!
Got a 4k screen on my laptop, yeah honestly not worth it at all. Barely a difference from 1080p, and yet requires significantly more resources to use. Unless you have a massive display, really not worth it at all.
I’ll be honest I’m with you on the world going to shit and all that but I can’t use 1080p after 4k it feels like blurry vision. I don’t know how you don’t see it as a significant improvement.
8k+ I don’t see any difference to 4k though, not at 20-30inch screen sizes anyway.
It just depends on the content. I have a 4K 65" TV that is at the upper end of mid-range in quality and 4K is definitely a noticeable improvement over 1080p in most instances, but a lot of the time it’s only noticeable if you’re specifically looking for it and doesn’t actually improve the viewing experience all that much. I do think it’s worth the upgrade though, just for the instances where it really does have a positive effect. Like, watching the Hong Kong fight scene in Pacific Rim on a good quality 4K display is just an entirely different experience than it is on a good 1080p display.
Similar mindset has been ruining video games lately. “You can see every pimple and bead of sweat on their face!” Cool, how does it run on a budget PC? “…just look at that hair! If you squint it doesn’t look like steel wool at all!”
“consumerism”? My dude, it’s pre produced video files. With hardware acceleration it takes barely any real processing power to play back 4k video.
You are not changing anything or making any difference in whether the world is “going to shit”. The Internet bandwidth you’re getting is being artificially choked by your ISP…always.
It feels like you think it’s some kind of moral victory and wanted to take some kind of arbitrary stand against “consumerism” and landed here.
Unless you actually have bandwidth limitations or don’t have a screen capable of displaying the content, lowering to DVD quality is achieving nothing at all.
Ditto. I even have an add-in that forces it to 480 unless I explicitly select something else. I like to use my bandwidth for more important things than counting pimples on an “influencer’s” forehead.
And I like to use my time for more important things than counting pimples on an “influencer’s” forehead
Seriously…what a weird take. High resolution video is simply just nicer to watch, these guys are going a very strange direction with it.
High resolution video is nicer to watch when:
- The content is worthy of it. (So, you know, not some talking head sitting at a desk like your average Youtuber.)
- You have so much free bandwidth that spending an order of magnitude more to get a marginal visible increase in quality is worth it to you.
480p hits a decent balance for me in most cases. It makes the people in the video recognizable (like, say, the presenter in a news/comedy/pop science/whatever vlog), and most text in such a video will be readable. Sometimes when there’s a lot of diagrams or when the pictures need clarity I’ll boost it to 720p, but using up over double the bandwidth is just not worth it most times. I have more important things to do with that bandwidth.
For a movie with a lot of rich detail, etc, 1080p is even nicer. It might even be worth the five times the bandwidth to get to it. But here’s where diminishing returns starts to kick in. 1080p is five times the bandwidth, but only a bit over twice the linear resolution. It had better be a really important doubling of resolution.
4K streaming? That’s laughable. Yes it’s over 4 times as high in linear resolution, but it’s over TWENTY times as high in bandwidth. I could literally watch 20 simultaneous 480p streams (or 4 simultaneous 1080p streams at a paltry 2× improvement in linear resolution) for a single 4K stream.
And that’s just bandwidth. Processing costs are on a similar order of magnitude. I have a computer at home that outpowers all the supercomputers that were on the planet put together when I was a child. Playing a single 4K movie sucks up most of its processing power. Again, I have better things to spend my CPU time (and/or electricity bill) on than watching some presenter’s pimples on screen in fine detail.
The content is worthy of it. (So, you know, not some talking head sitting at a desk like your average Youtuber.)
That’s the most important thing. The last two things I watched in 4K on my TV were the Avatar sequel and Community. One of those is absolutely a different experience in 4K than it is in 1080p, and the other may as well be in 720p for all the difference it makes.
I’m talking about Community, obviously. Joel McHale is dreamy and deserves 8K at minimum.
If you have more important things to do, why not just NOT watch them in the first place?
