Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

YouTube’s dominance and (limited) alternatives

• Many see no realistic one‑for‑one replacement for YouTube due to its scale, infra, search/recommendations, and ad payouts.
• Alternatives mentioned: Vimeo, Rumble, Odysee, BitChute, Nebula, PeerTube, Dailymotion, Twitch, Kick, X, Substack, Internet Archive.
• Rumble is praised for video quality and lax moderation but criticized for tolerating extremist content; some refuse to support it on that basis.
• Nebula and Floatplane are cited as promising creator‑driven platforms, but their reach still depends heavily on YouTube for discovery.

Self‑hosting and federated options

• Self‑hosting via Jellyfin/Plex/Kodi or PeerTube/ActivityPub is popular in principle but seen as too complex for most users; “four‑click containers” and turnkey images help but don’t solve UX or discovery.
• Bandwidth and storage costs, CDN complexity, and risk of viral traffic spikes are repeatedly cited as hard blockers versus “just put an MP4 on a web server.”
• Some argue federation plus “value‑for‑value” or direct patronage could eventually support creators, but monetization and discoverability remain unresolved.

Ads, ad‑blocking, and user behavior

• Aggressive anti‑adblock measures (warnings, playback limits) pushed several commenters to use yt‑dlp or watch less YouTube; others pay for Premium and consider that the “fair” solution.
• Some predict escalating technical “ad wars”; others note that Premium itself is being slowly enshittified (price hikes, restrictions).

Copyright, piracy, and the “harmful” label

• Many believe the strike is really about revenue protection and ad‑skipping (e.g., Kodi YouTube plugin), not safety.
• One thread argues the video plausibly violates YouTube rules against explaining how to get unpaid access to media, especially given DVD/Blu‑ray decryption laws in the US. Others counter that legality varies by jurisdiction and region‑locking would be saner than global removal.
• DMCA systems and Content ID are widely criticized: easy for bad actors to file fraudulent claims, hard and risky for small creators to fight back.

Moderation, censorship, and scope creep

• Broad concern that once vague “dangerous or harmful” categories and automated enforcement are normalized (COVID, “safety,” copyright), they expand to cover competition, self‑hosting, and unpopular viewpoints.
• Others push back: some level of moderation is unavoidable (CSAM, incitement, obvious medical quackery), and platforms face real legal and business pressure from advertisers and regulators.
• Debate centers less on whether to moderate and more on who decides (platforms vs law vs courts), clarity of rules, and lack of meaningful appeal.

Economics and lock‑in

• Several note creators are “golden‑handcuffed”: YouTube’s ad market, recommendation engine, and network effects make moving away economically irrational.
• Self‑hosting or federated video is considered feasible for niche or hobby use, but not yet for those trying to earn a living.
• Broader structural critiques target the ad‑funded platform model and call for antitrust action, regulation, or public/commons‑based infrastructure to rebalance power.