Before Google came along, most search engines were manually curated. I'm disappointed that nobody's had any success bringing that concept back. They always cave in and take the cheap route by trying to make the general public & algorithms rate things, which of course instantly gets gamed to uselessness.

I would recommend going to some local art faires, it will soothe your anxiety about the future (of art). I bought a small oil-on-canvas painting of a sailboat at sunset from a young artist at a recent art faire, who was thrilled to talk about art and even tried to give me the painting for free. Creating art by hand is soul-satisfying, and rest assured, my friend, it will never be replaced my AI.

The pagerank algorithm worked fine for many years in the 2000-2010s before google transitioned into a full time advertising company

When I worked with an influencer who made free workout vids, his ad revenue was 80% of income. It was an extreme minority from free videos to buying something in his store.

Then some algorithm change in 2018 broke his entire income, he couldn't afford me, and last I checked, he was sponsored by diet pills or whatever fake garbage.

It's a damn shame because his dream was always to provide free workout vids.

You're getting downvoted, but this is true. Nearly everyone who does youtube has gotten a strike at some point, me included. It goes away after 90 days. This means you can get a strike almost every month and keep going.

God I hope you’re right. We create such beautiful things. I’d hate to see humanity become so hollow that we stoop to accepting AI slop as art.

It was sooooo good in retrospect.

Easier than that. Just put it on peertube

We live in a society... What makes you think he'd even have a channel if he didn't need money?

Most of anything exist because people need money for food. Companies, technology, stuff. If people didn't need money the channel most likely wouldn't exist since stuff largely wouldn't exist.

People with enough of a viewership would still be offered sponsorship for videos. Like YouTubers who do their own ads in videos.

assuming they didn't keep 8K, Just the raw 4k footage from just the wan show for one year would be ~150tb

He's got 935 followers and about 20,000 views there

Rumble only takes half the cut YouTube does, But the amount of traffic on there is microscopic compared to YouTube. There's some room there to make money.

The vast majority of the content on there is a conservative echo chamber. I'd be a little worried about his ability to maintain journalistic integrity against big companies in that ecosystem. I'm also wondering what their ads look like

It's funny, I remember watching The Scene from torrents (or maybe eDonkey2000/eMule?) 20 years ago. And it was relatively popular. Though I don't remember the last time I even had a BitTorrent client installed. If you're right, then we've failed ourselves. (And you may be right.)

The vast majority of the content on there is a conservative echo chamber.

TIL. It's always rather amusing as someone outside of America that posts containing factual information get downvotes purely based on the perceived alignment of the subject on the zero-nuance American Political Spectrum. I block ads, so I wouldn't know.

If you're knowledgeable, I have a question. Years ago I uploaded a YouTube video that wouldn't publish because of an automatic claim. I instantly disputed it, and it took like 5 or 6 months to resolve. But I saw someone today say that claimants had a week or two to respond to a dispute. Do you know if that's the case now, or if someone was talking trash?

(I found a similar claim on YouTube, but they may've found the same line and repeated it, and who knows if FAQs are actually up to date.)

Honestly sounds like a glitch. Never heard of this before and from a quick search, I don't see anyone else having this issue. Did this by any chance happen in 2022 summer-autumn? At that time youtube was modifying it's dispute system and how many days it can take, which could have resulted in some oversight for some who were already in the process of it.

Claimants have 30 days to respond, after which it is automatically thrown out and your video should be good to go. The 7 day thing applies to counter-claims and escalation, not standart disputes, so 30+7 days(x*), but not months of just waiting.

Good on New York, and good to hear.

These two comments read like Dejá-vu…

I addressed this. Bloomberg must press actual legal charges for the takedown to stand,

Why then did you continue to claim: "the copyright strike got reverted and the video restored." ?

YouTube is basically saying to Bloomberg: yeah, we are ruling that this is not infringement,

No they are not, because the decision stands unless Bloomberg doesn't take further action.

Notice the take down notice according to Bloomberg themselves ,was not a mistake made by some form of automation. It was a manually reviewed take down notice by Bloomberg specifically against the video.
Also notice that such a take down notice result in a 100% guaranteed 10 day take down of the video, silencing it for 10 days, where even if restored after 10 days will only receive a fraction of the original views due to the YouTube algorithm not presenting it.

So the Silence part is 100% true and not clickbait as you claim.

IF Bloomberg chooses to pursue the issue in court, the take down will stand even though it is obviously made in bad faith. This is very contrary to your claim that it's already lifted which it is NOT!

that is still only 1 copyright strike

You keep claiming that, as if it has any real relevance. And as if you know how many of these they receive on average, and completely disregarding how easy it is to make a DMCA take down claim, and disregarding how these claims take down channels even when they are obviously not valid.
One aspect of how insane the YouTube practices are on handling these is described here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/1fg08j6/youtube_gave_me_a_copyright_strike_for_my_own/

So now if you would care to consider the motivation for the take down, which we don't know for sure, but we do have some circumstantial evidence.
The video was about AI chips used in China that China is not supposed to have access to.
The AI market in China is a $30+ billion per year market for Nvidia. So obviously Nvidia is not interested in it being disclosed about how their chips are sold to China despite being sanctioned.
Also notice that Nvidia is Bloombergs biggest customer. And Bloomberg made a similar video to the one Gamers Nexus made, but where Bloomberg found nothing,

Now consider a billion dollar market is at stake, and Nvidia probably spend more than the total value of Gamers Nexus at Bloomberg per month. How big do you think Gamers Nexus is in that context? They are as I described small, it's like a mouse fighting an rhino.

Now if Nvidia want that video blocked more than 10 days, they can easily have Bloomberg continue their frivolous claim, and have other allies post take down notices against Gamers Nexus and have the channel closed. It's actually insane how easy it is, because Google seems to almost always side with the bigger player, probably because it's the cheapest solution requiring the fewest lawyers.

So the threat to close the channel is absolutely there. And the only real protection Gamers Nexus has is the Streisand effect. Legally they can practically do next to nothing.

If Bloomberg decides to, they can squash Gamers Nexus like a bug with little effort. If you really can's see that you are very naive.

Isn't this a bit disingenuous to why they originally started to change the algorithm though?

People figured it out and started abusing it by spinning up proxy websites that would just link to the sites they wanted higher up in the rankings. You could argue Google only became an advertising company so that they could regulate that whilst also taking a slice.

I'm not arguing that they've since lost their way though.