VidMe or Why Platforms Aren't Your Friends

> Vid.me Unfortunately, simply cloning youtube isn't a competitor without also cloning youtube's bankroll. For a very good explanation of why, see Folding Ideas video essay "VidMe or Why Platforms Aren't Your Friends"[1]. [1] [VIDEO]

There's a great video by Folding Ideas which talks about the issues with secondary services ( [VIDEO] - this is in the context of video platforms) One big 'bootstrapping' problem is that the first to adopt a new platform are the people who are _too toxic_ for the original.

I think this is a good description of why an absolute free speech site will never flourish: [VIDEO] what you describe is basically just Reddit, but with the people nobody wants to talk to on Reddit ... so mostly just the people you don't want to talk to on Reddit talking to each other,which has no mass appeal

There's a great video that goes through this phenomenon (in the context of Youtube vs VidMe) [0]. It points our exactly that the people who adopt a new platform tend to be the people most toxic for the original. I have no idea how you get around this. [0] [VIDEO]

It would if it had a legitimate new take on the video hosting problem and wasn't just "YouTube, but for free speech", which would immediately become "YouTube, but for Nazis". Folding Ideas (on YouTube) had a solid video about VidMe, which is a case study in how NOT to do this: [VIDEO]

Any "Reddit alternative" will have a hard time gathering users as long as Reddit exists (and doesn't alienate a critical mass of their users ala Digg). Dan Olson of the YouTube channel Folding Ideas made a very insightful video about the problem of setting up "alternatives" to popular social media platforms (having lived through several painful platform transitions himself): [VIDEO] The tl;dw is that if your "alternative" platform doesn't launch with unique and valuable features of its own to attract users away from the original platform then you will only attract toxic people who get kicked off the original platform as the first users of your "alternative" platform (because they are the only ones really in need of an "alternative"). This creates a self-reinforcing pattern where non-toxic users are repulsed from your alternative platform by the toxic users so growth only comes from more toxic users. You can clearly see this in the dynamic between Reddit and Voat.

[VIDEO] If you're going to make an X alternative, you have cater to it's core audience. In Reddit's case, it's the power users (folks who post all the content) the moderators, and the commenters. If you don't give them stuff Reddit won't, you won't do well. A new platform has to be significantly better for all of those groups or it doesn't have a chance

I mean, not just perception issues, but also the fact that you're inherently setting yourself up to build a platform with a core userbase of "People banned from [the more popular version of the platform they're cloning]." You build VidMe and the first people interested in VidMe are people that got kicked off of YouTube, which it turns out are rarely oppressed free speech advocates and much more often trolls and similarly unwanted individuals. If your userbase is entirely toxic, nobody wants to stay there, and your platform never really succeeds because of that. It's worth noting that I'm loosely parroting the content of a Folding Ideas video[1] that covers the discussion of the creator vs platform relationship overall. [1] [VIDEO]

Unlikely. A YouTube competitor has to offer worthwhile incentives to creators who can also be on youtube Eg. Vidme: [VIDEO]

That's true, but its a deeper problem with that. The moderation is a sort of "in protest" form, with lots of deliberate "blind eyes" and slow action so they don't get deplatformed by the app stores etc. Beyond the moderation, these sites have the problem that they are inherently set up as a sort of opposition haven -- "we're twitter for people banned from twitter!" This results in a phenomenon Hank Green calls the "worst people problem"[0]. I'm not a huge fan of the judgemental term, but the core idea is similar to pointing out the inherent contradiction of, say, an anarchists' society. You end up with a userbase that is defined by its desire to flaunt rules and reject any normative standards. [0]: [LINK] (somewhat related and worth a watch: Folding Ideas' 2017 video essay about YT alternatives. Alt platforms have had inherent problems even before the more recent political bent: [VIDEO] )

No, you really don't. You get an exaggeration of the margins of society (very often one specific direction) that is discriminated against elsewhere, unless you're also the biggest and most profitable platform. And that's YouTube. You saw the same effect with Gab. These spaces become polarized very fast based on who is already there and what the admins believe is adequate moderation. Odysee seems more right leaning. I don't see queer content creators on there, for instance, despite YouTube heavily demonetizing and recommendation-banning them too. This is why I really want federated spaces, because they can serve different margins of society without becoming isolated islands. Folding Ideas made this point (about VidMe) half a decade ago: [VIDEO]

Folding ideas has a video on vidme that goes into this. A competitor that can't sell itself on features will inevitably gain traction most with those banned from the original platform. Currently that means a new platform will have very angry, very extreme voices. That is a terrible way to start a platform. Here is the video: [VIDEO]