Don't build your castle in other people's kingdoms (2021)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Building an audience or business on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, Substack, or app stores offers unmatched reach and monetization tools, but leaves creators exposed to algorithm changes, bans, and sudden product shutdowns—essentially “digital sharecropping” on someone else’s land. Commenters weigh the trade-off between visibility and control, suggesting strategies like owning a domain and email list, cross-posting content, and architecting products to be portable across providers, while acknowledging that true independence is limited because every online presence still depends on underlying “kingdoms” such as hosting, DNS, and cloud infrastructure. The emerging consensus is to exploit big platforms for discovery and traffic, but always maintain an exit plan and a direct line to your audience.

Platform Dependence vs Owning Your Castle

  • Core idea: relying entirely on major platforms (YouTube, Twitch, Meta, App Store, etc.) is risky; accounts and reach can vanish arbitrarily.
  • Many argue for “bridges”: use big platforms for reach, but always point people to assets you control (website, mailing list, own domain).
  • Others note huge successes built wholly inside platforms (e.g., app businesses on iOS, large YouTube channels) as counterexamples.

Visibility and Discovery Constraints

  • Strong pushback: your own site alone rarely gets discovered; most users live inside a few platforms and won’t “guess URLs.”
  • SEO can work if you become the best resource for your niche, but most small businesses don’t invest enough in that.
  • Consensus: early growth usually requires playing in other kingdoms; the debate is how aggressively to pull people back to your own.

Video Creators and Hosting Alternatives

  • Many see “just self-host video” as unrealistic: bandwidth is expensive, discovery is weak, and users prefer familiar platforms.
  • Some examples of hedging: independent OTT platforms, membership sites, Nebula-style consortiums, Floatplane, Rumble, Fediverse / PeerTube.
  • Skeptics note these still rely on other infrastructure and have tiny audiences relative to YouTube.

AI, APIs, and Commoditizing Platforms

  • Parallel drawn to building on OpenAI’s APIs: same “castle on rented land” issue.
  • Suggested strategy: make the LLM provider swappable and not your main value; avoid features likely to be cloned by the platform.

“Everywhere Is Someone Else’s Kingdom”

  • Many argue full sovereignty is impossible: you still depend on registrars, ICANN, hosts, CDNs, payment processors, and legal regimes.
  • Distinction emphasized: some “kings” (domain infrastructure) rarely act arbitrarily; social platforms ban/derank users and businesses daily.

Email, Newsletters, and Substack-like Tools

  • Strong support for email lists as the most durable direct channel.
  • Counterpoint: younger audiences may not use email much, and big mailbox providers can silently throttle or blackhole mail.
  • Substack and similar tools seen as a middle ground if you can export lists and use your own domain; still platform risk.

Digital Feudalism and Regulation

  • Several frame the situation as “neo-feudal”: oversized kingdoms with disproportionate power.
  • Proposed macro-solution: regulation and open protocols to force interoperability and weaken lock-in; fediverse seen as a partial step, but economically and socially incomplete.