cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/31250679
"this morning, as I was finishing up work on a video about a new mini Pi cluster, I got a cheerful email from YouTube saying my video on LibreELEC on the Pi 5 was removed because it promoted:
Dangerous or Harmful Content Content that describes how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content, software, subscription services, or games that usually require payment isn’t allowed on YouTube.
I never described any of that stuff, only how to self-host your own media library.
This wasn’t my first rodeo—in October last year, I got a strike for showing people how to install Jellyfin!
In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!)
So I thought, this case will be similar:
- The video’s been up for over a year, without issue
- The video’s had over half a million views
- The video doesn’t promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally
Slam-dunk, right? Well, not according to whomever reviewed my appeal. Apparently self-hosted open source media library management is harmful.
Who knew open source software could be so subversive?"
Yeah, I don’t get this mindset from content creators. It doesn’t have to be some big thing if they’re worried about losing viewers and money.
Bare minimum: Uploading a video to Youtube, a Peertube instance, and to Archive.org isn’t much more work than just uploading to Youtube. Put links to all three in every description with the note that video mirrors are available at these following places.
I think the real issue is that giving up Youtube means giving up a revenue stream. Not a ton of people make video content just to create stuff anymore.