Yes they are, some from the very conception of YouTube perhaps, but they are not real alternatives a real alternative would be one where all your subscriptions also upload the same content there, it is totally not YT based and you get the same or similar ecosystem Google provides, I don't think too many channels fit this.

I mean, if your requirement for a youtube alternative is that it's as big as YouTube, you're just guaranteeing that there will never be a YouTube alternative...

Yeah perhaps, we are here on Lemmy after all, which I consider a Reddit alternative, but with YouTube the thing is different because we follow individuals, and here we follow subjects, hopefully somebody can truly stand out against Google in the video field, a movement big enough to motivate content creators to check it out, the last thing I hear was about Odysee, which I think is a step in the right direction.

YouTube started to censor foss content for being violet and dangerous.

YouTube started to censor foss content for being violet and dangerous.

I assume you mean fascist propaganda over and above the right wing rabbit holes that already exist on YouTube….

Ugh, this is terrible.

This is such bad news. I'm sympathetic to content creators who have to step on eggshells to please the algorithm/advertisers... But this?

Yeah, this is not that. We all know who this is for.

YouTube started to censor foss content for being violet and dangerous.

Good. I don't really care about youtube, but less censorship is always a good thing.

How can you people say you respect science when you support silencing any criticism of it? That's not science. That's religion.

That said, this criteria clearly only exists to protect "influencers" who make youtube a proportional amount of money. If you have a channel with very little traffic and you say something controversial, you'd better believe your "freedom of expression value" will not be high enough to outweigh the corporation's perceived "harm risk."

It's likely going to be selective censorship, i.e. Nazi cunts stay, criticism of said Nazi cunts will go.

I still wouldn't trust Google not to nuke my channel on a whim even in spite of those relaxed moderation rules. What's stopping a little bribe from the right company or political party from causing them to backpedal or even tighten their grip further?

This is why one should at least mirror their content to PeerTube or a similar alternative platform like that even if they're not going to just outright post future content to said alternative and give up on YT altogether.

How long before Google locks YT down to loading only on Chrome, and only on Windows, Mac, ChromeOS, or Android, and only without ad blockers of any kind, including hardware ad blockers like PiHole being implemented anywhere, and straight-up blocking it from loading at all on non-Chrome browsers (to also include other Chromium browsers) and on Linux or iOS, and enforcing TPM2 and SecureBoot mandates for authentication, and blocking downloading and re-uploading of YT vids, using DRM?

Basically, I wouldn't put it above them to ensure their video platform only runs on their browser, and only on hardware that they deem worthy of running it, even if it means somehow implementing a Vanguard-style rootkit. Something else I wouldn't put it past Google to try, is completely discontinuing the YT browser client and fully locking the API down to the official app, and still implementing a Vanguard-style rootkit on that.

Moderators were previously told to remove videos if one-quarter or more of the content violated YouTube policies. Now, that limit has been increased to half.

This seems like alien speak to me. They announce that shit, someone read it, and then repeated it in an article. But what does it mean?

Can you have 6 contents and make 2 really crazy? Can you tell people to commit violence for 5 minutes and then review a game for 6 minutes? Is there a dude with tvtropes open going through and marking the contents of content?

Intention: YouTubers can stop with the whole self censoring shit.

Example: Unaliving; PDF file; grape; etc.

Reality: Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh, and other right wing grifters receive zero censorship while YouTubers still have to self censor to receive monetization.

Do people still have to say unalive?

Censorship is goddamn stupid.
They should just tag content & let people decide what to filter.