Youtube bans 3D print channel after manually reviewing its videos as suitable for monetization [Louis Rossmann explains the censorship]

CA doesn't control the Internet Plus he had none of that content on his channel save for one video on the history of printed guns which got him dinged just over a year ago and he removed it

What is a ghost gun?

How long before that heads to the supreme court?

Sounds about right, I remember watching his content on that regards awhile ago when I was interested in the topic, before my state made them illegal that is.

Basically if you wanna operate a company hosted on servers in a specific place you're going to have to abide by the laws of that place. Or if you want the ability to do business in a specific place you'll need to abide by their laws even if you're not from that place.

3D Print General had one video where I recognized an AR-15 lower being printed in the background. The voice over was on the printer or filament (I forget).

Hoffman Tactical is still on YouTube. I was made aware of this channel when researching CF Nylon. HT has several promotional videos of his 80% printed AR rifle, and long discussions about which filament to use for which part of a rifle.

It's very inconsistent.

To make a YouTube alternative you need a global ad platform, storage capacity for exabytes worth of data, a global network of CDNs, and a global payment system for creators. These all need to operate at a massive global scale delivering content to viewers.

No one but Google has this.

They are doing this with Nebula, even though that's not federated. Judging by the reviews of the Nebula app, they can't seem to get the usability of their app to an acceptable standard.

Youtube lets you monetize videos - I'd assume you can make more (and earn a living) more easily there than via an alternative. I agree they should be looking at alternatives but until they can earn a living there I doubt much will change.

Nebula, Curiosity, Floatplane. The problem is not the videos, it's the revenue. Many popular YouTubers, don't actually make a living out of YouTube. But out of sponsored videos. Many more just live out of Patreon. For example, James Stephanie Sterling intentionally doesn't monetize the videos and intentionally break different copyrights with different litigious holders to avoid anyone monetizing the video (copyright lockdown). It's the ones who are way too small to live off of alternatives or don't fit other platform's brand that get left out to fend on their own against YTs gargantuan and irrational stranglehold monopoly on the space. There's simply not a large enough market of users willing to pay, Google made sure to make it that way.

For years YT has waged war against small niche channels. They don't bring enough ad revenue, unlike the MrBeasts and the Michael Brownlees level channels.

Even the biggest YouTubers don't make enough money to sustain something as large as YT. And if they wanted to, they would have to give seats and voice to the same type of undesirable stock bros that make Google the enshittified hellhole it is now.

Why have none of these big creators banded to put their weight behind one of the fediverse alternatives?

Because they can't make money from them. Are the fediverse alternatives going to have ads? Require a subscription plan? If their income will only come from in-video sponsors, then it doesn't matter if they don't have monetization on YouTube.

I just want to point this out: Louis Rossman is trying to fix this in a way, by allowing people to subscribe to a person and not one of their platforms, so if they get banned their new platform of choice will show up to all of their subscribers instead of them having to try and move their audience to a new nearly unused platform.

What do you think public domain means? Cos I don't think it means what you think it means

A federal server system for things like Wikipedia would be lovely.

You mean like the trademark?