We’re not talking about me, we’re talking about Steve.
That was the colloquial ‘you’ that is commonly used to refer to general people and Steve hasn’t been banned either so it still remains a hypothetical situation.
And it’s where the audience will remain until someone does something about it.
This, I agree with. However, one creator isn’t enough.
You’re still just stating a bunch of obvious stuff without providing any explanation why PeerTube isn’t viable.
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation. Peertube or any other alternative site are only a solution when Steve or any other creator has no option and still a bad one for an individual creator (including their production team since we’re obviously being pedantic). Short of them getting banned, it doesn’t make sense for one creator because they will lose a sizeable portion of their audience while doing so. Most people can’t be bothered to change platform if they’re only losing 1 of their 20+ favourite creators, especially if the alternatives aren’t as good by one aspect or another (not criticising Peertube specifically here since I’ve never used it, but I have tried a couple of others in the past and found the UI to be lacking or there simply wasn’t anything I wanted to watch). So, since I apparently have to spell it out despite it also being obvious, the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation.
It’s absolutely not.
the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
No it’s not better because it’s not true. Steve already has a massive audience. He already has several dozen other social media platforms he can use to promote a new space. There are a dozen other ways he can make money. It’s not unrealistic.
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him to that platform and stay on it solely for his videos. They won’t. A large chunk? Maybe. But not all of them. I’d say ~65% max, and that’s one hell of a hit to earnings if they’re ad-based. On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart. But you’re a Peertube stan and don’t care about those minor details so I’m sure it’ll be fine.
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart
Continuing to build your business on the rented land of a monopoly that doesn’t give a single shit about you isn’t smart either.
So we’ve got to that part of the discussion, have we? The part where the pieces line up too much for comfort so you deny what you were saying. Cool.
Continuing to contribute to a monopoly isn’t smart either.
This is something I actually agree with but short of a mass exodus of big creators, I see it being too small to matter, only serving to cripple the creators who jump ship.
That’s not what my name refers to but even then, there’s nothing left to debate. You’ve already decided you’re right based entirely on “He’s got an audience”, completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of them won’t jump to another platform for just one creator which would harm Steve’s viewship and thus his bottom line. You say I’m only stating the obvious, don’t have any legitimate reasoning and am resorting to strawmanning despite giving absolutely nothing to show Peertube is a viable solution. You ended the debate all on your own by being obtuse, likely willfully misunderstanding basic language and deflecting so I’m done wasting my time.
There’s no need to be such an asshole, alright?
That was the colloquial ‘you’ that is commonly used to refer to general people and Steve hasn’t been banned either so it still remains a hypothetical situation.
This, I agree with. However, one creator isn’t enough.
Whether you as a miserable Lemmy-goer likes it or not, “obvious stuff” makes for very simple reasoning and is plenty adequate explanation. Peertube or any other alternative site are only a solution when Steve or any other creator has no option and still a bad one for an individual creator (including their production team since we’re obviously being pedantic). Short of them getting banned, it doesn’t make sense for one creator because they will lose a sizeable portion of their audience while doing so. Most people can’t be bothered to change platform if they’re only losing 1 of their 20+ favourite creators, especially if the alternatives aren’t as good by one aspect or another (not criticising Peertube specifically here since I’ve never used it, but I have tried a couple of others in the past and found the UI to be lacking or there simply wasn’t anything I wanted to watch). So, since I apparently have to spell it out despite it also being obvious, the only way such a move would work is if we had a mass creator exodus which would force a much larger audience to follow them. Is that better?
It’s absolutely not.
No it’s not better because it’s not true. Steve already has a massive audience. He already has several dozen other social media platforms he can use to promote a new space. There are a dozen other ways he can make money. It’s not unrealistic.
You’re assuming all of those followers are going to follow him to that platform and stay on it solely for his videos. They won’t. A large chunk? Maybe. But not all of them. I’d say ~65% max, and that’s one hell of a hit to earnings if they’re ad-based. On top of that, moving to a platform that has a much lower userbase limits growth which means the content creator putting themselves into a situation of viewship decline which isn’t smart. But you’re a Peertube stan and don’t care about those minor details so I’m sure it’ll be fine.
No I’m not, nor is that what I said.
Continuing to build your business on the rented land of a monopoly that doesn’t give a single shit about you isn’t smart either.
So we’ve got to that part of the discussion, have we? The part where the pieces line up too much for comfort so you deny what you were saying. Cool.
This is something I actually agree with but short of a mass exodus of big creators, I see it being too small to matter, only serving to cripple the creators who jump ship.
We’ve gotten to the part of the conversation where you run out of legitimate arguments and resort to strawmanning.
Removed by mod
Username does not check out
That’s not what my name refers to but even then, there’s nothing left to debate. You’ve already decided you’re right based entirely on “He’s got an audience”, completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of them won’t jump to another platform for just one creator which would harm Steve’s viewship and thus his bottom line. You say I’m only stating the obvious, don’t have any legitimate reasoning and am resorting to strawmanning despite giving absolutely nothing to show Peertube is a viable solution. You ended the debate all on your own by being obtuse, likely willfully misunderstanding basic language and deflecting so I’m done wasting my time.