How the hell isn’t it?

Because it is true, the channel could be deleted, and it was an obvious attempt by Bloomberg to silence him, which he shows many reason for why they may want to do in the video.

When it is true it is not clickbait.

Youtube sided with them, the copyright strike got reverted and the video restored.

For the fourth time, it is NOT reverted, and the video is NOT restored.

It takes three copyright strikes to delete a channel.

Maybe it is the third? You don't know, at least you haven't shown anything to indicate that you do.

And I will add my own 3: YouTube will never just outright delete a cashcow channel like GamersNexus.

Again Gamers Nexus is small fry for YouTube.

LOL “I’m right because I got more upvotes”.

No you make false claims, and was downvoted for it. Usually click bait is an easily accepted answer, but here it was not because you are wrong.

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.

How the fuck are you so dense?

Read my whole comment. It is demonstrably NOT true.

Why is it a big deal? Don’t you agree with Linus that clickbait is just part of the game, and we should accept the sensational thumbnails and titles? Hate the game, not the player and all that?

Surely torrent distributed video can still have sponsorships in it, stick it up as a video on your own website is an option too. Could even go for low res video on website (cheap to host) along with an option of HD torrent.

I did and edited my comment, adding more false claims doesn't make you right.
Also it's rich calling me dense, when you repeatedly make the same false claim that the take down is reverted when it is not. It's explained very clearly in the video, that it takes 10 days from filing the complaint, and if Bloomberg persist on the issue, the take down stands.

You are very dense to not accept that when it's explained to you at least three times!!!

It's clickbait.

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?

this is speculation, but it's possible that youtube don't like it when large mainstream creators have backup platforms and will start cracking down.

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.

Surely torrent distributed video can still have sponsorships in it, stick it up as a video on your own website is an option too. Could even go for low res video on website (cheap to host) along with an option of HD torrent.

Right but Bloomberg only did it once, right? Or are they talking about "in general"?

Why is this being downvoted? I'm genuinely asking questions .

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.

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?

You can easily get three strikes in a few moments with frivolous takedown. Then you are deleted and can only hope to beg youtube to reinstate you on twitter.

Maybe they can finally get a real job?

Right but Bloomberg only did it once, right? Or are they talking about "in general"?

Why is this being downvoted? I'm genuinely asking questions .

Can someone explain me why creators cant do both? Reupload a mirror on peertube.

Its in their interest to have a solid backup when youtube inevitably dies.