Their bread and butter is hardware reviews and weekly news. No, they're not a drama channel. Just because that's the only time you, personally, hear about them doesn't mean the rest of us work that way.

Telling Linus to fuck off is a good idea regardless of views.

So I am completely ignorant about this, but... Would just hosting torrents to their own content work? I know the revenue might not be the same, but, would it be possible to keep it going around?

Yeh, absolutely.
The DMCA takedown works because music/film industry execs have previously gone after YouTube for not responding to legitimate copyright infringements.
So YouTube now favours the person claiming the strike and makes it very difficult for the defendant to exonerate themselves.

Changing how they publish will sidestep YouTube overplaying.
But YouTube has revenue split with content creators, and has an absolutely massive audience with discovery algorithms and community stuff. Moving away from that platform would be an insane move

Nobody is gonna watch a torrent tuber, the audience would get cut to 1/100th if even that.

Too many people rely on the aggregates and the algorithms.

Simp spotted. Tech drama Jesus isn't gonna like you more for defending him, he doesn't even care that you exist.

I don't have an interest in being liked by Steve. I do have an interest in journalism outlets who are willing to say that a $4T market cap company is full of shit.

Oh I did not know this, thanks for the correction. And you're right about sponsors. I'd be curious to hear the thoughts of a more income-minded content creator on whether this model is viable and what it would take to make it work.

Sounds like YouTubers should go after YouTube when this happens. Maybe a class action lawsuit for lost revenue?

"small."

Make no mistake. Gamers Nexus is a multi million dollar company.

Sure, Bloomberg is much, much bigger. But while gamers Nexus is the underdog, it's not the toothless underdog. That little fucker will bite in bloomberg's ankles before it dies and tbf: it looks like it's already yapping and took it's first bite.

There is no good answer to it.

It is ridiculous that a channel which uploads thousands of authentic original content can lose all algorithm momentum from a frivolous DMCA strike removing their video for 10 days.
It basically guarantees a video gets killed. Even if the video gets reinstated after an appeal.

This particular video will massively bounce back. People are angry at Nvidia, people are angry with YouTube and with YouTubes DMCA process, and now people are angry at Bloomberg.
And Gamers Nexus isn't gonna let this drop, and GN has earned its communities trust (and I think trust in general) that there will be flocks of people ensuring the video doesn't die.

But if this was a smaller channel releasing a massive expose like this, it would probably just drop out off the public's radar before it gets established

These people don't understand what a class war looks like...

So, there are options.

You have three challenges:

• You need to be discoverable

• you need to be accessible

• you need to monetize

If you just make videos and torrent them, you're not monetized, you're not discoverable and you're not really very accessable to the average person.

Youtube is this nifty one-stop-shop that provides all three to a certain point.

Peertube gives you some discoverability and lots of accessibility, but nothing for monetization.

Odysee gives you a tiny bit of discoverability and lots of accessibility, but almost nothing for monetization.

Floatplane (assuming GN wasn't feuding with LMG) gives you reasonable monetization and accessibility but almost nothing in discoverability.

edit: cut myself short

I'd like to see some form of partially federated system that works with peertube. I think the platform could scale and we could give youtube a run for their money.

Messy. Youtube could just refuse to serve his videos because they decide they don't want to

They have more lawyers than God, I can't help but think the contract they all have with Google favors Google to the extreme.

It'd be dangerous to his revenue stream.

If he reduces views on YT, the algo will recommend him less. His internal sponsors won't pay more for the non YT content so he'll just be gutting his own traffic if it takes off. Assuming he has disks around with all his finished content on it, he could stand it up later if he wanted, but it's not like Peertube can host an unlimited amount of video for free. Someone is paying for those disks and for the transfer of those bits.

Ideally, he'd stand up his own PT and we'd share in watching his stuff and reduce costs Peer style. But he's still going to be out a serious payment stream and the PT network can't just perpetually bare the cost of his storage.

It's like if LMG wanted to host their back catalog, we'd need peer tube hosts with a PB of storage sitting around ready to take his catalog.

LOL, the world may never know.

I'm still not sure which side of that whole thing i'm on. I know he's less annoying than Linus. But even Billit labs seems to have less hate for LMG than he does

That is true, but yes Gamers Nexus is (relatively) small, and a million dollars can be gone in no time, if a multi billion dollar company decides you need to be gone.
1 million dollars is far from enough to run just a single somewhat high profile copyright lawsuit.

This case is simple, so they will probably manage that pretty easily, there is basically no way Bloomberg can win. It's just a typical harassment tactic that will work against by far the most smaller outlets. But Steve is smart, he knows bullshit when he sees it, and he is not easily scared.

But if Bloomberg gets pissed enough, Gamers Nexus could soon be toast. Just like Gamers Nexus has friends more powerful than themselves, so does Bloomberg.

And 3 frivolous take down notices can appear from various sources in no time. And to YouTube Gamers Nexus is definitely small fry.

"We're going to collect as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers"

That's a rather pessimistic interpretation of a privacy policy that starts with this:

The spirit of the policy remains the same: we aren’t here to exploit you or your info. We just want to bring you great new videos and creators to enjoy, and the systems we build to do that will sometimes require stuff like cookies.

and which in section 10 (Notice for Nevada Residents) says:

We do not "sell" personal information to third parties for monetary consideration [as defined in Nevada law] [...] Nevada law defines "sale" to mean the exchange of certain types of personal information for monetary consideration to another person. We do not currently sell personal information as defined in the Nevada law.

So yes, I suppose they may be selling personal information by some other definition (I don't know the Nevada law in question). But it feels extremely aggressive to label it a "shithole" that "collect[s] as much data about you as we can to sell to advertisers" based on the text of the privacy policy as provided.

If those other sources make more money and get more viewers, why did it start on YouTube?

Oh please get over yourself, you silly self righteous fan boy. Don't act as if your beloved "Tech Jesus" is above tactics like click baiting to get clicks and views. Almost every single one of his videos has a click bait or otherwise "algorithm optimized" title and thumbnail.

And I get it, it's their livelihood, they rely on getting views, but that doesn't make it not click bait and this one in particular is a gross exageration: they got a single bogus copyright strike and it was reverted. The channel was never going to be deleted.

Hey and it worked too, because I got it in my youtube feed, clicked on it and watched the video, and I probably wouldn't have if I had known it was such a nothing burger.

One strike is nothing.