• scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I didn’t realize anyone earned anything on Twitter ever. Is this just video views? Is this new?

    Also, fuck Musk, etc.

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s new, he decided to add it to attract Tucker Carlson. I don’t know who would watch a whole 20 minute video on their phone though.

    • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      LMAO Twitter’s community has been the cesspool of the internet for ages now and everybody knows it. "On Twitter YOU can be real, as long as you’re real straight, cis “non-transgendered”, and far right.

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That lady is in so over her head all I see is her hands moving around frantically with that copy paste reply.

      • Marxine@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We all know she was put in the CEO position to take the fall, she has no way to save or fix anything.

    • Trarmp@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, she’s “right” in that Twitter can’t be duplicated — but it can be made obsolete by better alternatives.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You hire servers to take the orders from clients and bring those orders to the clouds. Then they take the data from the clouds and bring it to the clients. It’s the RESTaurant protocol

    • IDatedSuccubi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t feel that their system is even designed to share millions of video streams every minute like YouTube

      I know that if I have internet connection so shitty that images don’t load on websites for minutes, there are still two websites that somehow manage to squeze videos in that bandwith, and those are YouTube and PornHub, I don’t think Twitter has the same network infrastructure capabilities

  • Fisk400@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How is he going to be able to handle more videos when he has to ration text views because it’s melting his servers.

  • Zetta@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Top bad Twitter’s video player is very bad, and Twitter’s but rate is very noticably worse than YouTube.

    Also I don’t watch Mr beast so I don’t give a shit in the first place.

    • Betty White In HD@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except no. If I’m a content creator, what’s the guarantee that he’ll pay me what I’m owed? His previous pattern of behavior in this space is “maybe I’ll pay, maybe I won’t.”

      Anybody with half a brain wouldn’t do business with somebody like that.

      I get that tech has been different for ages in big part because of the insane investor money coming in, but the industry is starting to maybe be grounded to reality now that interest rates are going up.

      Imagine being a small to medium size business and taking on a client or supplier that has a history of not delivering or paying their invoices. Content creators are small to medium businesses and need to operate as such.

      • Dodecahedron December@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tech is different because people / regulators don’t largely understand tech, lots of people praise “moving fast and breaking things” and folks like Elone hand wave over things like bills and pat themselves on the back for being “innovators”.

        If more people understood that folks like Elone aren’t “business geniuses” any more than criminals already are.

  • KittyBitTees@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wish Twitter would just stop existing already. Why do people acknowledge the shitty owner of the site at all? Just keep this scum out the news. Easy.

    • bloopinator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If Twitter stops existing it will just mean less competition in the social media sphere and help further expand Meta’s share in the market. That’s not a good thing.

      • Betty White In HD@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Counterpoint: Twitter failing and Elongated Cuck Musk having to maybe face consequences and figuring out how to actually pay some of the $44 billion he bought it for is a good thing.

        It would also force people stuck on Twitter onto another platform and possibly lead them to another platform other than Meta.

        Competition is good, but poorly run, shitty, unsustainable businesses failing despite the ultra wealthy mongoloids wishing otherwise is also good. It’s very good.

    • people_are_cute@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most people don’t have any fucks to give over who owns what. If its running and convenient to them, they’ll use it.

  • Margot Robbie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    He’s always been desperate for attention, but now the public sentiment has finally turned against him everything he does just looks sad.

    Oh and his memes were always stale AF.

    • Cybermass@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      How is he a fake philanthropist???

      Google the definition of the word philanthropist, he’s a pretty on the nail example.

        • Cybermass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alright this is a fair argument, it’s actually pretty true.

          I think a lot of people mistake philanthropy for charity, but they are not the same.

        • BackStabbath@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is that because of a technical definition? I thought he does do a load of good for people. Regardless of whether he also profits from it. Isn’t that sort of a win-win? More reason to give back for him as well. But I don’t watch his videos and don’t know the fine details.

        • lakv@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          maybe you could say that about his YT channel, but he also runs a food bank in his city, right? I don’t think he profits from that, so at least by that token he is a philantropist

            • lakv@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not American, but tax write-offs aren’t free money afaik—you still end up with less money than you started with, had you not started the charity.

              But, aside from that, you could say that about any other philanthropist, as most of them don’t get their money from thin air, which means they could use their philanthropy for tax write-offs. If that makes them not philanthropists, then there are no true philanthropists, which makes the distinction between fake and true ones meaningless.

              • Flat Pluto Society@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                tax write-offs aren’t free money afaik—you still end up with less money than you started with, had you not started the charity.

                Exactly. Giving to charity basically just offsets the amount of income you’re taxed on. To give a really simplified example, say I’m making $100,000 per year and I’m taxed at 25%, so I pay $25,000 in taxes. But if I give $10,000 to charity and write that off on my taxes, I would be taxed as if I made $90,000 in the year, so I’d pay $22,500 in taxes.

                Of course it gets really complicated when you own a business as well as your own tax-exempt charitable foundation and you distribute your money by donating to your own foundation…

      • irotsoma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        When your philanthropy is just enough to offsett your taxes and you still get to make money off of the assets you donate until the term of the trust expires, then is it really philanthropy? Not to mention, a lot of the time the “charity” they donate the assets to are run by them indirectly, and it’s then impossible to track where the money goes after that.

        Donate your stock to a charity through a trust before you sell it. You get a tax break that year for the donation. The trust sells the asset and is tax exempt so no capital gains tax. You take 5% every year as that amount appreciates from investing it. Only pay regular income tax on that which you wrote off with another “donation”. Make your money back over 15-20 years, then make a profit until the trust expires, or you do and then your kids make the profit. Charity gets whatever is leftover after the trust term expires.

        Just one example of why “philanthropy” is usually still making profit for them, maybe slightly less profit in some cases than they could have made with it otherwise, but considering they already have more money than the next 100 generations could possibly use, it’s just a small price to pay for the PR.

        • Cybermass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I mean you and I are in agreement then, the dude who coined the term philanthropy literally did it to get positive press while his company did some really terrible borderline illegal union busting. It’s not like calling someone a good person it a descriptive word.

  • Stach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No one would watch videos in GARBAGEp resolution when 1080p is right behind a corner on YT

    • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I deliberately lower streaming quality on everything I watch. If the thing is really worth it I might watch it in 720p. Everything else goes in 480p.

      The push for 4k is a level of consumerism I’m not comfortable with, having the world going to shit as fast as it’s going.

      • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ditto. I even have an add-in that forces it to 480 unless I explicitly select something else. I like to use my bandwidth for more important things than counting pimples on an “influencer’s” forehead.

          • DigitalPortkey@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Seriously…what a weird take. High resolution video is simply just nicer to watch, these guys are going a very strange direction with it.

            • ttmrichter@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              High resolution video is nicer to watch when:

              1. The content is worthy of it. (So, you know, not some talking head sitting at a desk like your average Youtuber.)
              2. You have so much free bandwidth that spending an order of magnitude more to get a marginal visible increase in quality is worth it to you.

              480p hits a decent balance for me in most cases. It makes the people in the video recognizable (like, say, the presenter in a news/comedy/pop science/whatever vlog), and most text in such a video will be readable. Sometimes when there’s a lot of diagrams or when the pictures need clarity I’ll boost it to 720p, but using up over double the bandwidth is just not worth it most times. I have more important things to do with that bandwidth.

              For a movie with a lot of rich detail, etc, 1080p is even nicer. It might even be worth the five times the bandwidth to get to it. But here’s where diminishing returns starts to kick in. 1080p is five times the bandwidth, but only a bit over twice the linear resolution. It had better be a really important doubling of resolution.

              4K streaming? That’s laughable. Yes it’s over 4 times as high in linear resolution, but it’s over TWENTY times as high in bandwidth. I could literally watch 20 simultaneous 480p streams (or 4 simultaneous 1080p streams at a paltry 2× improvement in linear resolution) for a single 4K stream.

              And that’s just bandwidth. Processing costs are on a similar order of magnitude. I have a computer at home that outpowers all the supercomputers that were on the planet put together when I was a child. Playing a single 4K movie sucks up most of its processing power. Again, I have better things to spend my CPU time (and/or electricity bill) on than watching some presenter’s pimples on screen in fine detail.

              • Flat Pluto Society@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The content is worthy of it. (So, you know, not some talking head sitting at a desk like your average Youtuber.)

                That’s the most important thing. The last two things I watched in 4K on my TV were the Avatar sequel and Community. One of those is absolutely a different experience in 4K than it is in 1080p, and the other may as well be in 720p for all the difference it makes.

                I’m talking about Community, obviously. Joel McHale is dreamy and deserves 8K at minimum.

      • nyternic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        4K, 8K, 1,293K is overrated gimmicks to me. I want to see actual improvements, not just how big the resolution can get and how much detail. The last thing that wow’ed me like that were movie theater screens. I’m not really that impressed with it. Also 60FPS shows and things are so off-putting!

        • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ll be honest I’m with you on the world going to shit and all that but I can’t use 1080p after 4k it feels like blurry vision. I don’t know how you don’t see it as a significant improvement.

          8k+ I don’t see any difference to 4k though, not at 20-30inch screen sizes anyway.

          • Flat Pluto Society@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It just depends on the content. I have a 4K 65" TV that is at the upper end of mid-range in quality and 4K is definitely a noticeable improvement over 1080p in most instances, but a lot of the time it’s only noticeable if you’re specifically looking for it and doesn’t actually improve the viewing experience all that much. I do think it’s worth the upgrade though, just for the instances where it really does have a positive effect. Like, watching the Hong Kong fight scene in Pacific Rim on a good quality 4K display is just an entirely different experience than it is on a good 1080p display.

      • DigitalPortkey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “consumerism”? My dude, it’s pre produced video files. With hardware acceleration it takes barely any real processing power to play back 4k video.

        You are not changing anything or making any difference in whether the world is “going to shit”. The Internet bandwidth you’re getting is being artificially choked by your ISP…always.

        It feels like you think it’s some kind of moral victory and wanted to take some kind of arbitrary stand against “consumerism” and landed here.

        Unless you actually have bandwidth limitations or don’t have a screen capable of displaying the content, lowering to DVD quality is achieving nothing at all.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even I don’t get where you’re coming from and I won’t replace the 720p TV in my bedroom because I don’t want to deal with some smart TV crap and the resolution is fine because it’s a small TV.

        But intentionally not watch it at low resolution because fuck society? Makes no sense to me.