ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, August 01, 2017

Vid.Me is SJW-converged

It is now evident that Vid.Me is not a possible replacement for YouTube. They are not a serious service, and actually appear to be even more converged than either YouTube or Twitter.
We’re writing to let you know that we’ve reviewed your application for verification, but unfortunately we won’t be able to verify you at this time.

We’re still a small team, so we can’t give you detailed feedback on why your application wasn’t approved, but here are some common reasons:

    Haven’t met the minimum follower threshold of 50

    No cover photo, profile avatar, or videos uploaded

    Limited interaction with the Vidme community

    Not adhering to the Vidme rules

Also, sometimes we make mistakes. We’re imperfect carbon-based lifeforms.
For the record:

Voxday
7 videos
1,006 views
99 video points
270 followers
Joined Jul 24, 2017

Here are some of the people they verified at the same time they denied me verification, which is required for access to the settings that allow for creating subscriptions:

Midgeman
4 videos
9 views
8 video points
2 followers
Joined Jul 21, 2017

SayMo
180 views
8 video points
11 followers
Joined Jun 23, 2017

Casanova
0 views
0 video points
9 followers
Joined Aug 01, 2017

I also discovered that their settings don't permit giving external supporters from Patreon or wherever access to the premium content, so it wasn't going to be an option anyhow unless and until they got their act together with regards to that feature. So, thanks very much to all of you who followed and helped me determine that Vid.Me is not a viable option for anyone on the Right.

Needless to say, I will not be making further use of their service. It's not a problem, though, as I already have several alternatives; this simply happened to be the first one that was recommended to me.

Update: I'm not the only one.

QNTKKA‏ @Qntkka
They would not verify me because of my content. They are MORE SJW than YouTube.

Labels: ,

61 Comments:

Blogger David The Good August 01, 2017 6:26 PM  

Dang it.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable August 01, 2017 6:27 PM  

Good to know. Less time wasted down the road for others too.

Blogger #7139 August 01, 2017 6:34 PM  

What a sad way to begin your existence on the Internet being more converged than Twitter.

OpenID aew51183 August 01, 2017 6:41 PM  

In other news, YouTube have announced they have found a new instruction manual: Orwell's collected works

I have yet to see a single supportive comment:

https://youtube.googleblog.com/2017/08/an-update-on-our-commitment-to-fight.html?m=1

Anonymous Bowman August 01, 2017 6:49 PM  

We're cucks. That's so unfortunate, but we are cucks.
Cuck.
Cuck.
We will cuck ourselves into oblivion rather than saying anything of value.
Cuck.
Also, we're cucks.

Anonymous johnc August 01, 2017 6:51 PM  

YouTube now working with the ADL... What could possibly go wrong?

Blogger Markku August 01, 2017 6:52 PM  

Cucklivion: Where converged projects go to die.

Anonymous 360 August 01, 2017 7:03 PM  

Neo-Marxist bastards. Eh, you'll find something better.

Anonymous Crew August 01, 2017 7:25 PM  

I guess that means we will have to update the Vidme article at Infogalactic to indicate that there is evidence that they are SJW Converged.

Blogger Ben Cohen August 01, 2017 7:36 PM  

What's with the dumb humor that oozes estrogen that SJWs always exhibit?

Blogger Sentient Spud August 01, 2017 7:37 PM  

Good to know. Was considering them as a potential YouTube alternative, but this confirms it would be a poor choice.

"We have rejected your application. We don't know why." - Vid.me

Anonymous Parity Bit August 01, 2017 7:38 PM  

Crew @9: "I guess that means we will have to update the Vidme article at Infogalactic to indicate that there is evidence that they are SJW Converged."

If anyone does, please also correct the error that starts"During December 2017"...since December 2017 has not yet occurred.

Blogger Ingot9455 August 01, 2017 7:40 PM  

OT: Multiple articles hitting Drudge on how somehow Seth Rich is fake or a ploy by Trump. Something must be ready to drop on the issue.

Anonymous karsten August 01, 2017 7:47 PM  

What's that adaptation of the well-known adage?: any entity not explicitly Alt-Right and/or WN will of necessity soon become anti-white?

One pretty much requires a project to have a cards-on-the-table name like "Hatreon" to even have a chance of it not being converged.

(Okay, Gab might not, in its name alone, raise a middle finger to the Left, but given that its whole premise is being "the Twitter that does not censor," it earns honorary hatreonic bona fides.)

Anonymous Jack August 01, 2017 8:01 PM  

"We’re imperfect carbon-based lifeforms."

Of course they're shitlibs. Who else would say something like that? It sounds like a Death Cab for Cutie lyric.

Blogger Zaklog the Great August 01, 2017 8:24 PM  

Speaking of Gab.ai , does anyone know what's going on there right now? It appears to be down.

Blogger mrparabolic August 01, 2017 8:39 PM  

Thanks. I just uninstalled Vidme and rated it 1 star in Google Play.

Blogger John Williams August 01, 2017 8:41 PM  

Less time wasted down the road for others too.
Fail fast, fail cheap, share results amongst the minion horde.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 01, 2017 8:49 PM  

Gab was down for about half an hour, but now it's back

Blogger JDC August 01, 2017 9:05 PM  

And I wasted my time coming up with a screen name and password.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 01, 2017 9:14 PM  

Aaaaand Wikileaks just confirmed that Seth Rich leaked the DNC emails, as the weaponized autists have thought all along. So that's what the MSM was trying to get out ahead of today. They're really scrambling now.

Blogger Starboard August 01, 2017 9:24 PM  

You've been rejected. We're too incompetent to tell you why. "We’re imperfect carbon-based lifeforms."
Snark snark snarkity snark snark snark. Was the rejection written by Scalzi?

Anonymous H_Saxon August 01, 2017 9:24 PM  

Indeed. Varg Vikernes attempted to move to Vid.Me due to problems with YouTube a few months back and then quickly discovered that Vid.Me is far more converged than YT is.

Anonymous Bad Attitude August 01, 2017 9:32 PM  

@4 aew51183: Thanks for heads-up about YouTube. It looks like Alphabet/Google/YouTube isn't even pretending to be neutral any more.

The named participants in their "Trusted Flagger program" indicate there will be no neutrality. I already knew about the ADL, but I'd never heard of the No Hate Speech Movement (NHSM), and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD). After looking at the NHSM and ISD web sites, it is obvious they are pro-rapeugee, pro-muzzie, and globalist.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 01, 2017 9:33 PM  

Was the rejection written by Scalzi?

That was my thought too. Why does every freaking thing have to be snarky now? Are modern people that afraid to just say something and mean it?

It's a rejection letter; a tiny bit of professionalism might be in order. This just comes off as passive-aggressive: we're not going to tell you why you were rejected, but we'll self-deprecate a little so you can't be mad at us. It's the snarkier version of, "It's not you, it's me. But it's totally you."

Anonymous Ryan F August 01, 2017 9:33 PM  

It seems to me that alt tech will not only need to build its own platforms but also build any bases of operations far into flyover country where SJWs would fear to move in order to infiltrate said organizations that find it necessary to house employees.

Blogger dc.sunsets August 01, 2017 9:43 PM  

Only when resources are unlimited do new business operators feel bold enough to flip the bird to potential customers.

The credit bubble allows morons to keep the lights on.

I do sincerely look forward to this ending, and Business Darwin return to impoverishing lousy entrepreneurs.

Blogger Alexandros August 01, 2017 10:09 PM  

This is troubling; the kind of capital that you need to get a video service running is astronomical. There will be no alternatives for the forseeable.....

Hey, this just came my mind, but could it be decentralized through torrenting/peer-to-peer? I imagine the bandwidth required would make this unfeasible and unpopular videos would still have to be hosted by the service itself, but popular videos seen by tons of people.... and if it's decentralized, you can completely get around annoying underhanded tactics enabled by the DMCA like copyright strikes. Furthermore, you could keep videos which would otherwise get deleted for bad think alive since they're not centrally hosted.

Blogger mgh August 01, 2017 10:27 PM  

So it is past time to rid myself of all things Google. Anyone have a recommendation for a Gmail replacement?

Blogger LP9 August 01, 2017 10:29 PM  

I left a day after joining, didn't like it, it seemed tinged in SJW vibes.

Blogger LP9 August 01, 2017 10:31 PM  

We are somewhat stuck with google, for example "comment as," AIM, typepad, live journ are all annoying too but alt tech will solve this matter. I have great confidence in such.

Blogger Cloom Glue August 01, 2017 10:38 PM  

@28
https://www.bitchute.com/faq is attempting the torrent model they say.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 01, 2017 10:43 PM  

@28, Yes, you could build something on top of a torrent-type or peer-to-peer model, where once you share your video and others pick it up, they become uploaders as well. The sticking point would be bandwidth, it seems to me. People are walking around with connected devices, but many have metered data, so they'd have to have a way to limit it so a downloaded video wouldn't suddenly turn into 100 uploads and kill their data.

That's a technical or configuration issue, though. I'd guess people already are working on such a system -- it's not a radical idea -- but I don't know if there are working systems available yet.

Anonymous Icicle August 01, 2017 10:46 PM  

They would not verify me because of my content. They are MORE SJW than YouTube.

Is that even possible?

Anonymous roughcoat August 01, 2017 10:47 PM  

Alexandros wrote:This is troubling; the kind of capital that you need to get a video service running is astronomical. There will be no alternatives for the forseeable.....

Hey, this just came my mind, but could it be decentralized through torrenting/peer-to-peer? I imagine the bandwidth required would make this unfeasible and unpopular videos would still have to be hosted by the service itself, but popular videos seen by tons of people.... and if it's decentralized, you can completely get around annoying underhanded tactics enabled by the DMCA like copyright strikes. Furthermore, you could keep videos which would otherwise get deleted for bad think alive since they're not centrally hosted.



Self hosting is financially feasible for people with an audience that's willing to pay a little bit for the service, especially if they're okay with 720p video, and lower quality for any streaming (like Periscope now). DigitalOcean charges $0.02 per gigabyte of transfer and they're probably not the cheapest provider around. It's also not that difficult to autoscale so you're not overprovisioned (and paying for it) when you don't have much server load.

But as Cail pointed out a month or so back, the problem is making it very easy for people to 1) get their sites running and 2) upload their videos with minimal fuss. Most people interested in running a video channel are not sysadmins or developers, after all. Networking, in the sense of providing recommendations for similar videos the way Youtube does, is also a problem in a decentralized system.

I haven't really worked on this problem yet but I've been thinking about it off and on. Once I clear some of my projects I'll probably start experimenting.

How the solution is built depends on the specific goals, of course. For example, if the point is to serve as a platform to get messages out, you want different things than if the point is to make money off ads. In the former, you don't care if people download and distribute your video with their own bandwidth. It's desirable, in fact. In the latter case, you only want people watching the video on your site so they keep ringing up the ad views. You need a lot more bandwidth for the second scenario and you want to make it harder to download videos. I'm much more interested in the first goal.

Anonymous DDT August 01, 2017 11:00 PM  

For those of you looking for some kind of alternate model/site to compete with Youtube, I've got an alternate suggestion. This isn't my specialty, but hey, for the purposes of brainstorming maybe it'll go somewhere.

The main problem here is the sheer bandwidth requirement of hosting these videos. If the goal is to build another platform, you're already giving up on some traditional advantage of youtube (installed userbase, being found easily by people browsing on youtube, maybe even to a degree monetization. That last one is a big fucking loss for many, but put it aside for now.)

So, why not change the approach: have a site where people can post links to their content, their About page, all the other framing/background shit that normally is served by Youtube/etc (and are the easiest things to host), and set it up so people can host the actual videos on youtube, vid.me, or whatever the fuck else out there wants to host content, which they'd then embed/link to on this site?

Yes, youtube and others may shut this shit down. And when they do, you just create a new account and upload again. Or make the content on youtube unlisted, or all kinds of things. It may take some work, especially if you have people actively policing this. But until someone finds a way to fund a real solution, this seems like it may be worth a try. It's not even a real novel idea in a way, since "Content on one site, but embedding vids on youtube" is godawful common. The difference here would be to purely use youtube, etc, as a bandwidth sink. If they scrap the video, just put it up again, update the link.

I could be missing all kinds of roadblocks here, both legal and technical. But for now, hey, there's an idea.

Blogger David The Good August 01, 2017 11:02 PM  

I signed up with Vid.me as a backup to YouTube in case things get weirder there. This is disappointing. They seemed to be less obviously converged, judging by some of the content creators that made the jump. Try, try again. Vimeo is worse than all of them combined - I had tried them first.

Anonymous Jack August 01, 2017 11:10 PM  

@21 Cail

A news search brings up a slew of articles with words like "bogus" and "discredited." It's just like Pizzagate. 'Discredited' without investigation.

I hope Cernovich addresses this tactic in his upcoming film on media hoaxes. They use it all the time - repeat, repeat, and repeat, and the lie sinks in through osmosis. They are all Gerbils.

Blogger Cail Corishev August 01, 2017 11:38 PM  

@35 roughcoat, it sounds like we've been thinking along the same lines. It does seem like current cloud/VPS pricing should make self-hosting feasible. One issue is transcoding the video to get it into the popular formats while also compressing it to smaller size. Periscope downloads, for instance, are only something like 100MB for 30 minutes, while my phone records more like 3GB in that time.

I've tinkered with a couple of video plugins for Drupal, and wasn't impressed. Nice thing about using a CMS like that is it can also give you the commenting and stuff that people would expect along with it. So I'm thinking of trying to do a new plugin, but I really hate PHP. Another option would be a separate, lightweight, custom-made server that just strictly serves videos, which could then be embedded in a CMS bundled with it on the same machine.

Blogger Mr Traumaboyy August 01, 2017 11:48 PM  

Deleted account!! Thank You!!

Blogger Cail Corishev August 01, 2017 11:50 PM  

So, why not change the approach: have a site where people can post links to their content, their About page, all the other framing/background shit that normally is served by Youtube/etc (and are the easiest things to host), and set it up so people can host the actual videos on youtube, vid.me, or whatever the fuck else out there wants to host content, which they'd then embed/link to on this site?

That's what people have already been doing, but it's not much of a solution to this problem. First of all, not many people just use YouTube. They setup a blog or some kind of web site elsewhere, put their videos on YouTube, and then embed those videos on the blog. If YouTube shuts them down, it doesn't take down the blog, but it breaks all their videos, which makes a video-heavy blog pretty worthless. Sure, you can create a new account and start re-uploading, but let's say you've built up a library of a few hundred videos -- how often do you want to have to do that?

And that assumes they don't block embeds from your web site's IP address, which would be fairly trivial to do. Every time they kill an account, they could check the logs to see if a particular site is responsible for most of its embeds, and block it.

Anonymous Darth Dharmakīrti August 01, 2017 11:51 PM  

@36 DDT

That plan strikes me as the kind of thing which would work (informally and temporarily) better for an individual than a platform. "We're going to put up new unlinked-to videos every time YouTube yanks us for violating TOS" exposes you to all manner of legal hell.

That said, I agree with your analysis of the problem. And I don't really know what to suggest as a better alternative for a platform. Voluntary donations are all the rage right now, and may be more sustainable than an advertising-derived concept of "free." I get the sense this is what Vox is hinting at when he keeps insisting on being able to integrate the Darkstreams with donation platforms like Patreon.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 01, 2017 11:57 PM  

Icicle wrote:They would not verify me because of my content. They are MORE SJW than YouTube.

Is that even possible?

It's not so much that they are more converged. It's that they are small enough for the personal touch.

Anonymous Ugly Mind Babies August 02, 2017 2:17 AM  

Interesting. I couldn't get verified and at the time I figured it was because I'm a nobody, but if that Casanova character could, I wonder...

Anonymous rotekz August 02, 2017 2:38 AM  

Check out https://lbry.io/faq/what-is-lbry instead.

Blogger Nam GTV August 02, 2017 2:51 AM  

Standee Giá Rẻ

Blogger Doomfinger August 02, 2017 3:12 AM  

What aboutMinds?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 02, 2017 3:17 AM  

I checked out LBRY and sit sems liek they are much much more interested in exploiting blockchain technology to do nifty things than in actually providing a functional technology themselves.
Their channel naming system is literally insane. All channel names are on permanent auction and you can be outbid at any time. The "credit" system wants to be a smaller bitcoin with no money directly attached.
The network and computational overhead per video is ... remarkable. It will simply never be able to stream video.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash August 02, 2017 3:22 AM  

And it seems Sony and Disney have invested VC capital in LBRY.
Convergence ahoy!

Blogger Shimshon August 02, 2017 3:55 AM  

It seems to me a blockchain could be used for all the Youtube meta data, including video recommendations and other network effects. That's probably not the way to go for the videos themselves. If the blockchain stores links to the actual content on SJW converged sites, then that could mitigate the problem Cail speaks of about linkrot on blog pages and the like. The link would be to the blockchain. And for videos that move, follow the blockchain to the latest entry. Something like that. I only get the gist of the technology, but it seems it could be used for such a purpose.

Blogger Shimshon August 02, 2017 3:59 AM  

What I said was before seeing Snidely's comment. It seems like there may be a there, there. Maybe LBRY is trying to do too much? Or using blockchain as a checkbox without thinking what it's appropriate for? I'll check it out myself.

Blogger Shimshon August 02, 2017 4:10 AM  

It looks like they've got the right idea but the wrong execution, given current constraints.

Blogger VD August 02, 2017 4:14 AM  

What about Minds?

They seem to have a VoxDay account that was set up for me that I can't access. And they have no email technical support. So, I tried the "forgot my password" option and didn't receive an email.

This experience does not tend to cause me to conclude it is a viable platform.

Blogger William Meisheid August 02, 2017 9:10 AM  

VD wrote:What about Minds?

They seem to have a VoxDay account that was set up for me that I can't access. And they have no email technical support. So, I tried the "forgot my password" option and didn't receive an email.

This experience does not tend to cause me to conclude it is a viable platform.


Is it possible someone highjacked the name just to lock you out? Hence no email to you but to the person locking out the name, notifying them of your attempt and validating their effort.

Anonymous NCMike August 02, 2017 11:03 AM  

2-3 months ago Aaron Clarey (captain capitalism) did the same experiment with all of the video platform alternatives and came to the unfortunate conclusion that youtube is currently the best one.

Blogger VD August 02, 2017 11:08 AM  

Is it possible someone highjacked the name just to lock you out?

No, I vaguely recall someone from there contacting me a while ago. And there isn't any activity there either.

Blogger Eraser August 02, 2017 12:08 PM  

I haven’t commented in this blog for a while but here I think I can offer a meaningful suggestion.

The biggest problem for content creators on the Internet is how to get paid. That is why Youtube demonetization is so effective. It hits content creators right on the pocketbook where it hurts and yet allows Youtube to use the cynical nice-guy excuse: “No, we’re not blocking anyone. It’s our advertisers, you know... They don’t want to be associated with the likes of you.”

The Patreon model works, but it suffers because there is a high psychological barrier to donating money. A user really needs to enjoy your work a lot before he will take the initiative to log in to the site and set up a recurring donation. Casual users will not do it. So Patreon limits your earning potential to “hardcore” followers.

Forget about microtransactions (like pay $0.15 to unlock this video). People almost universally hate them. Experience with phone call plans, gym memberships, internet providers and the like shows that the vast majority of people would rather pay more for unlimited access than pay per use.

The best model is revenue sharing like Kindle Unlimited. Imagine a content platform that hosts both free and premium content from many different creators. Users who wish to access premium content need to pay a membership fee. I’m thinking something like $5 a month. It’s a single fee for the entire website, so the psychological barrier must be overcome only once. Revenue is split among the creators according to number of views or some other metric.

The biggest obstacle is how to get critical mass. In Internet terms, $5 a month is a big commitment from a user. It’s absolutely essential to get some very popular content creators to join the platform early or it will never take off. If a group of guys like Vox, Cernovich, Stefan Molyneux, Roosh, Milo and others teamed together, they might be able to do it.

Blogger Roger G2 August 02, 2017 7:13 PM  

I like the possibilities here. If we could get the word out that vid.me-or any company-doesn't want to do business with, idk, half the population of the western world(?), that'd be nice. Of course we dont need them and they're certainly free to choose their own business models. Their Trust + Safety team(odds are they probably have one) can implement whatever trendy feminist or transgender-authored codes of conduct they wish, and we'll likely be unharmed in any way and couldn't care less.
I only wish that people on the right and altRight would get it together and vote with their wallets(as cliché as that sounds), scroll on by anything associated with the company-and let their advertisers know, hereby hitting them where it hurts-so that we can be done with all this ridiculous non-platforming committed by arrogant PC police/SJW's against the truth, logic, and reason of their users.
No matter though, when this sjw trap loses its butt and sees zero growth or profit potential, they won't be able to say they weren't given a chance to be inclusive of intersectional guys like me(white, male, cis/hetero, American)-with my own moral agency and my own dollars-when it's time to explain to shareholders why the echo chamber won't make money.
Hope that made a little sense, if any.

Blogger Roger G2 August 02, 2017 7:15 PM  

That's a foreboding thought. Makes one very uneasy, to say the least.

Blogger Montrose August 04, 2017 6:54 AM  

BitChute solves the bandwidth-requires-money-and-(((investors))) problem.

Anonymous Anonymous August 04, 2017 2:49 PM  

i gave vid.me 1 chance but that site is not an alternative to youtube at all. its not very big and most of the content there is just political trash , maybe a few nice things here and there but not that much at all. Its basically Just A Place For All The Political Reject Wannabes Stuffed In One Small Area To Complain About Things That Are Mostly Not True .. There Is A Few Trolls And Some Annoying Hackers As Well . Not A Place For Creativity , Just A Waste Of Time . Not Worth The Effort - Im Sure There Are Better Places Than That Garbage Dump

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts