Patreon and Lipsey's/ AFR

[Shawn Dodson]

You still need a provider to host your video content, no? Rumble seems to be doing pretty well as a video platform that doesn't restrict content.

Unlike social platforms, web hosts generally don't care about content unless it's blatantly illegal.

Or one can obtain an IP address to setup a private web server that practically eliminates all third party interference with content.

[TGS]

Unlike social platforms, web hosts generally don't care about content unless it's blatantly illegal.

Or one can obtain an IP address to setup a private web server that practically eliminates all third party interference with content.

Finding a platform to host firearms content isn't a problem.

Finding an audience to pay for the content is the problem, because you can't make enough money on ad revenue on the alternative firearms friendly hosts.

You'd run into the same problem trying to do it on your own website, not to mention even bigger problems with attracting viewers.

[Paul Blackburn]

Go to the WPSN.

[jh9]

Finding a platform to host firearms content isn't a problem.

I'd potentially argue that finding a solvent platform to host firearms content could be, though. See previous post about rumble.

For advertisers, gun content is like adult content. What platforms want is a saccharine pipeline of inoffensive content they can sell bidding-war style to all comers. Instead, every major brand has a list of Shit They Do Not Want Their Ads Next To, Ever. The more of those boxes content ticks (gun and adult content checks a lot of them) the less adspace they can sell. Toyota, Disney and Starbucks do not want their brand next to anything controversial.

For platforms that take a cut like patreon it gets a little more complicated because there's revenue (people who gave money) vs really complicated costs. Like moderation costs for CSAM in adult content, illegal gun sales for firearm content, DMCA takedown requests and appeals, etc. Along with things like private companies with big investors that just don't like guns/porn/whatever. So when some account manager hears "we got five hundred takedown requests for your content yesterday; you made us $X and cost us $X+$Y" there's a threshold there, somewhere, at which this content is not financially viable. Unless you're a big account, it could well be the moderation team has a great deal of leeway under some $$$ value to just cut you loose.

A friend of mine was a dev at patreon a few years ago, I could ask her but having been around this block enough times I suspect the answer is the same as it always is: the only thing investors like more than money is more money. If you're bringing in money at that level you could rat fuck a dachshund puppy on your livestream and get at most a 1 week ban. If you're bringing in less than that? Any part timer on the moderation team can cut you lose and a human being will never see your appeal. These places are in business to make money. Above $X you can do anything and get away with it. Below $X and your termination is something that's 100% automated with either no or minimal human intervention.

[TGS]

I'd potentially argue that finding a solvent platform to host firearms content could be, though.

I don't know how more clear I could've been.

Finding an audience to pay for the content is the problem, because you can't make enough money on ad revenue on the alternative firearms friendly hosts.

[CleverNickname]

I don't understand why folks just don't get their own website and post videos there instead of YouTube, Instagram, Patreon, etc.

1) No ad revenue from their videos.
2) No discovery. If a video is on some other website it won't show up in a social media site's recommended video section. If a video is on some other website someone can't hit a "subscribe" button and easily see other videos in the future. And if a video is on some other website it won't show up in a social media site's search. It's like it doesn't exist.

[TGS]

Go to the WPSN.

And that's the other problem. Not everyone who owns a gun, or makes firearms content, wants to be associated with the Christian crusade. For some such as historians, it's professionally unacceptable....not because of a bias within the historian community against any particular religion, but because that community conducts their work with as much detachment from biases revolving around politics and religion as possible in order to preserve the integrity of their work.

A historian that covers firearms content who hitches their wagon to Lovell will have trouble getting museums to open their collections and archives to them, because they won't be viewed as a legitimate historian.

This is exactly why Ian McCollum distanced himself from InRangeTV.

[Casey]

YRumble has never turned a profit and despite a recent spike is down 40% over the last year...

Thanks for that. I had no idea.

[jh9]

I don't know how more clear I could've been.

Finding an audience to pay for the content is the problem, because you can't make enough money on ad revenue on the alternative firearms friendly hosts.

Ad revenue is one component of the larger picture. Even with an audience paying for it directly.

[GJM]

They are back in business:

https://americanfightingrevolver.com/