- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- foss@beehaw.org
- degoogle@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/22423685
EDIT: For those who are too lazy to click the link, this is what it says
Hello,
Sad news for everyone. YouTube/Google has patched the latest workaround that we had in order to restore the video playback functionality.
Right now we have no other solutions/fixes. You may be able to get Invidious working on residential IP addresses (like at home) but on datacenter IP addresses Invidious won’t work anymore.
If you are interested to install Invidious at home, we remind you that we have a guide for that here: https://docs.invidious.io/installation/..
This is not the death of this project. We will still try to find new solutions, but this might take time, months probably.
I have updated the public instance list in order to reflect on the working public instances: https://instances.invidious.io. Please don’t abuse them since the number is really low.
And while we’re at it, stop calling them ‘content creators’
EDIT: to clarify, my stance on this is that ‘content creator’ devalues the human endeavour behind a piece of work (or content, if you will). Instead it’s just slop for the machine, and who cares what it is as long as it gets numbers, right?
What is the alternative name for someone who creates content for a platform?
Well, we start by referring ta work not as “content”, but as what it actually is. Then work from there. For instance, one could ostensibly call Ahoy a filmmaker or a documentary maker.
… Which is a type of content.
There’s a lot of content that doesn’t fit neatly into a category though, because it was made by someone turning on a camera and making a video without worrying about any commercial concerns. So calling someone like that a creator is a catch all term for anyone making content for a platform.
But don’t you think it’s a bit reductionist? We read books, not analogue text content. We eat meals, not nutritional content. We listen to songs, not rhythmic euphoria content. I don’t think it’s about commercial concerns - in fact, the term ‘content’ to refer to anything and everything is the ‘commercial’ way of putting it.
Someone hitting ‘record’ on a microphone and jamming on a guitar is still music. Why should we treat video any differently?
It’s a technical term, we may not use it in everyday conversation, but it is the correct term.
Bruh that dude is a CONTENT CREATOR, not a filmmaker 😂🤣🤣
His internet videos are colourful animations meant to serve ads while capturing attention and summarizing Wikipedia articles giving some thoughts on them, and I love them, but it’s called content for a reason.
“Bruh” is not a strong opener to an argument
Bruh 💀
Do we need a general term? Someone who uploads their videos to a video platform is probably a “video producer”.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Content
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Creator
So what should we say when discussing people who make video, audio, text media?
I see their point about “content”, where, on YouTube, for example, it devalues the videos as subordinate to YouTube as a platform, but I think as people use the word “content” it loses that connotation.
video → video producer
audio → musician, podcaster, … depending on the type of audio
text media → author
So what word should we use when describing all of those people in one group?
I don’t have a very good answer to that either tbh; do we really need to do that so often?
We’ve been doing it often enough that we’ve adopted a term for it, yes.
Time wasters.
!!!
I’ll take the name Content Creator over Influencer any day.
Why? What else would we call them?
To answer the “why”, it’s because the word “content” is kinda meaningless. Instead of making films, documentaries, talk shows, reference guides, cartoons… it’s all just this generic “content” slop that’s just there to feed the machine
What a strange opinion.
It’s not that strange, I have a friend who literally said the same thing today in reference to one of his favourite channels shutting down. He preferred to call the stuff on this channel art, rather than content. I agree with the person above too, the term has always bugged me. It makes it sound so mass produced, like your job is to just produce meaningless “content” for people to mindlessly consume. And to be honest, that’s exactly what the mainstream YouTube culture is about.
I mean, you don’t call it whatever you like, but content is the technical definition of it.
I agree with this a lot. I really do not like the term “content”. It is like going to a recipe for some “slop”, like using a term that is just a catch all for everything tossed on a plate.
Art is great. Movies, music are also fine terms. And so is simply saying they made a video. Watering it all down to the term “content” is just so boring and mind numbing.
Not really. The term “content creator” is corporate speak. Google’s ad-based business model has a binary classification: content and ads. It’s not an inaccurate term, but using it implicitly endorses the corporation’s binary world view.
Words is funny sometimes.
Call them what they truely are. Digital panhandlers
That’s pretty insulting, a lot of what YouTube creators do takes real skill, and it’s a full time job for many.
In the past maybe, but certainly not these days. It’s overglorified corporate money grab propaganda, that goes around shamelessy guilt tripping viewers when truth is spoken. Much of these so-called content creators do not much else than making face react videos to something they saw and just talk about their likes or dislikes. They get paid lots just to make a soy-jack face and shitty clickbaits. The amount of money some them get paid is large sums insane for little efforts in proportion to what worth it actually ought to be. There people out there putting real efforts and labor to contributions to society to keep it running that paid squat in comparison. Its sad really. Go ahead downvote me, it doesn’t change the truth i speak.
Entertainers. Show women/men.
Showman/woman refers to a pretty specific type of performer, I.E someone who is on stage typically.
Entertainer isn’t a label I’d necessarily apply to educational content, for example.
Then call them educators, or presenters… teachers, maybe, depending on the nature of their work
Yes it’s much better to use
“comedians/teachers/musicians/educators/entertianers/phonereviewers/sportscommenters/singers/journalists/programmers/documenters/analysts/lawyers/lockpickers/politicians/presenters/trolls”
… than…
“content creators”.
If you find someone that fits all those categories, I wouldn’t begrudge you that
What do you have against creators as a label? I don’t really see these difference myself.
Or just call them Content creators, recognize they don’t really produce value for anyone but YT’s grab on the attention economy and start living in the real world.
Not all content is entertaining. Someone who makes tutorials I wouldn’t call an entertainer. That’s why “content creator” is used as a catch all term to cover all of it.
Show women/men sounds like a 70s porno “medical” exploitation film
Right. Call them youtubers! Wait…
Male/female adult online entertainer?