Most Atheists define Atheism as “lack of belief in a God”, which seems like it applies here. Agnostic is usually defined as “lack of knowledge of a God”, which also works here, so both Agnostic and Atheist.

It makes sense when you look at Theist (with belief in a God) and Gnostic (with knowledge of a God) that adding an A before it just means “without”.

As a Sync user myself, why should I switch? I’ve been using Sync for years on Reddit, I love the interface, and I don’t mind if the dev makes a bit of money from it with the occasional and minimally intrusive ads or paid ad removal.

No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.

As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.

At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.

Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).

The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.

Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.

I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.

Just to be clear, I define Atheism as “without belief in a God”, that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.

To achieve this goal, i’m saying that if google were to lose profits from people using ad blockers, they are more likely to extract profits from their creators than sacrifice their bottom line.

The creators are their product, the adblock users cost everyone money and provide no benefit, why would they punish their product over the users costing them money? The adblock users aren’t the bottom line, they are no benefit, and cost both YouTube and the creators in lost revenue.

This is why i wholeheartedly support things like Patreon, Ko-Fi, etc. because that directly supports creators and means that they don’t have to completely rely on a company that no longer says “don’t be evil”.

That’s great and all, but YouTube still has bills to pay, they can’t just let you use the service free without ads, let you just give money to creators through those other services, and expect to even break even.

Has P2P changed much? I don’t think it has really. I use private sites for that stuff now and it’s great there, but the public stuff still seems pretty bad IMO.

Well if they don’t want their content there, then you have the whole problem if it being illegal. Now you have to convince people to break the law, and go as far as to install a VPN or whatever so your ISP doesn’t send you warnings. This isn’t a great start for something to replace YouTube.

I think Big is required for a P2P YouTube style thing to work. You need lots of peers to stream content in decent quality. You need people to knowingly break laws and use VPNs. You need people to run their own media servers, you are asking a lot from people, all YouTube is asking you to do is watch some ads or buy premium.

What’s crazy is that you can come from a country like the US, having never driven a manual car before, and go legally rent and drive a manual car on the roads in the UK.

So you want to live just making ends meet? Don’t care about having a savings account? You would be happy with just enough to get by without any excess? I don’t know anybody who would be happy with that.

If you want to run away from the conversation then go ahead. If you do happen to have some money you don’t want though, since who needs to make more than what they need just to break even even, right? I’ll happily take it off your hands.

BitTorrent may have been big as in number of files, but as far as users and having content on demand it never got there. I remember waiting for days to get a single movie, not because my Internet was slow, but because the peers were slow.

When it comes to a YouTube replacement I don’t think you are going to get big relying on users to be the servers. Nevermind the fact that the nature of how BitTorrent works means no company will allow their content on it legally.

Maybe instead of looking at revenue you should look at profit. Revenue means nothing if your running costs eat it all up.

Also, maybe try to look at YouTube Numbers instead of the whole parent company? The patient company being profitable isn’t an excuse for the child company to lose money.

Make a living, pay the bills.

I don’t know what YouTube’s market share is, but for videos that are not short TikTok style it’s probably like 95%? And they are also in the TikTok short and twitch streaming areas now, so I think it would be a massive blow to video streaming if they went away.

BitTorrent just moves all the costs to the users, and users are typically not wanting to run their own video servers. They might work for tech people who don’t mind running servers or already have a server they are running, but you have to think about the regular user that is probably 80% or more of the market. You can’t expect to get big off relying on users to be the servers.

Wikipedia mostly displays text, YouTube mostly streams HD video, which one do you think costs more?

Are creators making enough money to get by on PeerTube? The idea is interesting, but I don’t see people making enough to do it full time, and I don’t see how the streaming quality can be anything as good or reliable compared to something like YouTube by relying on P2P.

As far as I know YouTube is not that profitable, but it’s hard to tell as they don’t release all the numbers.

Do you make any excess money? Do you have any money left over after rent, food, etc? If you do, do you need that money? If you don’t would you like to make more? Nobody wants to live with no excess money, so why should a business?

Part of the problem might be all those people blocking the ads, which I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a pretty big chunk of their viewers. No ads means no ad revenue, which means losing money.

Do you care if the service goes down and nobody gets any videos?

Do you really think they would stop paying creators before stopping people from bypassing the way both them and creators make money? It doesn’t take a business major to see that running a free service without ads is only going to cost them money.

A website increasingly necessary shouldn’t force someone without a penny to choose between paying what they can’t afford or have their head fried up by ads.

If not ads then what is the free option supposed to look like. I hate ads also, but it’s not like it’s sustainable to run free without ads.