[fragmede]

Nah it's shit advice that blames you, the victim for making that choice of platform, rather than finding fault with the platform's behavior. The opportunity costs to you of supporting multiple platforms takes away from producing content. You end up with a fraction of the same number of users, just spread across multiple platforms, and crucially, the platforms aren't all the same. What plays well on YouTube won't play well on twitch nor SnapChat nor Instagram nor TikTok nor Reddit. There's not zero crossover, but as you've found, it's negligible. Go to where your users are, collect email addresses as backup, but spreading yourself thin across all possible platforms is not the recipe for success GP poster thinks it is.

[abrownbag]

I understand where he's coming from. Maybe having some branded url with a hosted alternative and shipping that to emails could have helped in the inevitable event something like this happened?

But I feel this post. This has been my exact experience. As someone who used multiple platforms to build an audience and try and grow I have retained some crossover but at the end of the day losing that source of revenue is just too big of a hit.

I don't know how I could possibly convince youtubers not to watch my videos on youtube realistically...

[serf]

>Nah it's shit advice that blames you, the victim for making that choice of platform, rather than finding fault with the platform's behavior.

>not the recipe for success GP poster thinks it is.

It's not shit advice, it's not victim-blaming like you make it out to be, and I think your tone is unwarranted.

One should play defensively around the kind of companies that treat users/creators this way; one of the only ways to take a defensive stance against large conglomerates is to seek alternative means that do not include them.

>spreading yourself thin across all possible platforms is not the recipe for success GP poster thinks it is.

More 'success', whatever you quantify that as, isn't what is implied in GPs advice; defensive poising and longevity is the implied advantage, which it turn leads itself to the success of a business in the long-term.

It isn't victim blaming when any other 'victimized' business group is advised towards multiple redundancy. It's not victim blaming when an executive officer suggests that a group invest in generators after a non-controllable black-out renders production lower than it could have been.

I get that your point is that other alternatives are un-populated, and that Mega-Corp-YouGoogle is really the only show-in-town with an audience for most creators; but let's step back and view this from afar and ask another question : "Is it healthy that there is only one venue on the entirety of the internet for this activity? Should I propagate that fact to everyone I advise and give those with power even more power by trying to push a 'truth' that no alternatives exist?"

> The opportunity costs to you of supporting multiple platforms takes away from producing content.

Yeah, a business-person who focuses on protecting the business rather than outputting product generally produces less product; the hardened business model more than makes up for that after the first 'act-of-god' proves that the redundancies that the efforts were put towards actually saved the day.

If a company is abusing you, take your business elsewhere. There are other streaming services, there are other content hosts, and there is no end to outrage against Google.

Eventually one of these services will catch, and Google's power will dwindle. It's not hopeless.