all 4 comments

[–]Riff 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Uploading to another video site like seems like it could be a good idea, but I haven’t researched Vimeo thoroughly, such as learning more about the company and its trajectory, how they make their money, etc. Maybe there are new websites that promise long-term preservation of public videos, or this could be the goal of a new company. Should that company be a non-profit like Wikipedia?

If one is afraid of the possible decisions of a company or group, don't put too much effort and trust into the platform. We've lost countless services to a change of ideology and pulling out Wikipedia as an example of how a non-profit organization is a good choice is counter-productive.

WikiPedia is one of the most censored platforms out there.

Basically, how do you prevent a YouTube like incident from occurring again. If the hypothetical company promises to archive and keep videos public or on the server for perpetuity, how does that really work? Can users still delete their own videos?

It's all down to the agreement the user makes with the company or organization. I don't think there's a clause in the YT TOS that YT have to host anything, I believe it's closer to "YouTube is free to delete content it finds unsuitable for the platform".

So, step 1 to prevent a YouTube like incident from occurring again is to make agreements with content platforms that makes sure that's not an option for the platform.

If a user uploads something like a documentary, and somehow provides a proof of right to upload, or uploads original content, what ways can that be video be protected from future owners of the platform?

AFAIK, a permanent agreement that puts the needs of the user above the company (that's not going to happen), government regulation overruling user-hostile terms of service (I hope that doesn't happen) or make sure you're the one owning the platform and just never sell it. (This is happening right now, the decentralization revolution is well underway).

Edit: Another thought for the hypothetical platform. Maybe a video viewcount or donations adds server time and increases the promised length of time a video will be saved, or that time could be purchased by the uploader or just be supported by the company.

That's a solution that only works within the bounds of a permanent and user-friendly agreement with the content platform. And even what is considered reasonable terms of service (see WikiPedia), it's still open for abuse.

The only solution I see that takes care of the proposed problem is self-hosting, and in practical terms for a regular user that means decentralized or P2P-networks.

I mean, I've already unofficially connected my personal, decentralized cloud solution to PeerTube instances (official support in the works) to subscribe to channels and if so inclined I can host my own PeerTube server and select what videos I want to help stay available by hosting a copy on my own content platform.

[–]Riff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Download for personal storage and self-hosting on PeerTube-servers if the user is so inclined? Torrents?

And is there a trend in YT documentaries getting taken down or are you talking about YT not recommending "conspiracy" documentaries any more? After double checking a few classics, they're still there, still promoting their views...

[–]useless_aether[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And is there a trend in YT documentaries getting taken down or are you talking about YT not recommending "conspiracy" documentaries any more?

i think both is happening. and they keep tweeking their algos, so what was true yesterday is not true today.

btw, i just posted this link, so we can see if they come up w/ something new...

[–]Riff 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I posted a more detailed reply to OP's points, but you've probably already gotten the notification in your inbox. ^