[shortformblog]

If you continue to this road, you should plan to fund the creators that this is siphoning from, or allow them some form of consent to agree to this.

What you are doing is, whether you’ve considered this or not, at risk of harming people who are building around video because it is financially viable. People produce these guides as videos because that’s how they can make money from them, whereas it is much more difficult to do so on a website.

You need to consider the implications of what you’ve built.

[_akhe]

Hm, is this the right take? The YouTube player is embedded on the page, giving the creator YouTube views and more exposure. And I think when a person uploads to YouTube the idea is their video will be out there - including in embeds on 3rd party sites.

I just wouldn't use the word "siphoning" here. There are countless blog posts, news articles, how-to guides, etc. that will embed a video like this yet also provide supporting text for readers. I think it's a pretty normal way of sharing content.

I for one am not a person who learns by watching videos, step-by-step guides work better for me. The idea that all those video tutorials could be made available as text-based guides sounds actually very useful - and I would still be very aware of who originated that content as their video is embedded right there.

It would actually be great if when I search for a tutorial and the most relevant result is a video, if my browser could summarize that video the way search engines summarize results at the top or in the side bar.

[shortformblog]

It’s literally describing the entire video in a way that is intended to replace the purpose of the video, and only displays the video minimally in the context of the website.

It pulls out the information without adding anything of value, while making it impossible for the creator to make money from it.

This happens with text content, too. Ask publishers about the large number of AI rewrites of their content going around.

The issue here is not “consumer value,” it is “publishers not able to make money on their work,” the entire point of my original comment, which your reply doesn’t mention once.

[_akhe]

It by definition promotes the video and the creator.

> publishers not able to make money on their work

Again you're wrong, the creator still gets the view and ad revenue not this third-party site where it's embedded, from YouTube:

  Only YouTube and the video owner will earn revenue from ads on embedded videos. The owner of the site where the video is embedded will not earn a share.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/132596?hl=en-do-i-...

[shortformblog]

I don’t know how you’re missing the bigger picture. It is taking away any reason to actually watch the video, which means nobody makes revenue from it. It is not a promotional tool—it is a replacement for the video.

[_akhe]

I understand your take but I don't agree. By your logic no news site could display a video at the top then summarize the video in an article. This is one of the main use cases of the YouTube embed - which gives revenue to the creator when it's played on a third-party site (and the third-party site host gets no revenue) and the YouTube creator has the option to disallow embedding their video if they don't want it embedded anywhere - it's in their control.

The idea that the number of embed plays will be 0 on this site is just unfounded, and untrue as I just watched a video in an embed on this site. That creator just got a view, where otherwise I would have never seen their content, thanks to this website.

[mattl]

A news site can embed their own content and summarize it.

This site does not check if a video can be embedded before attempting to summarize it.

This șite exists to take the work of others, regardless of if they want it to be used like this and barely makes any effort to show the source. There's no link to the channel, no credits from the video itself.

[j45]

I'm not sure if it replaces the video.

It can be an invitation to the entire video because a summary may not cover all the details.

Maybe you are noticing some of the summaries might be better than the videos themselves writing wise?

The folks taking relatively simple videos and extending it out into a video script to milk watch time probably just need to make better scripts.

[mattl]

The YouTube player is there, poorly inserted at the bottom of the page on mobile.

No attribution is provided. There's no credit given. The description from the video is not provided.

People make their living from producing YouTube videos. This isn't cool at all.

[_akhe]

Credit is given, for example this one: https://stepify.tech/video/Y4v8abG94CU

Says "Channel: Panigale Enthusiast" and the video is at the top-right of the page very prominently displayed.

On mobile - I agree it should be at the top, but for UI/UX reasons not because they're "siphoning from creators" which they are not - they are literally promoting the creators.

The people making a living from YouTube will make even more money now that their embed is on this site, won't they? Are you implying they don't get the views?

[mattl]

Why isn't it a link to the channel? Where is the description from the video which often includes the credits for the video, including writers, editors, etc?

People won't get views from this. This is taking the work of others.

[j45]

The site is meaning to keep people on the site, not send everyone to youtube. It's a different form to consume and narrow down what to watch instead of investing less time in videos that don't have the information you might be after.

Many genres of videos dont really matter as much for a summary, so I'm not sure if this is super ubiquitious

[_akhe]

Isn't an embed better than a link? Click play vs click a link then click play?

It's embedded and says the channel name in a giant font size. The creator gets the views.

> People won't get views from this

Do you know how YouTube embeds work?

[mattl]

No, a link would link to the YouTube channel so it would be good as well as the embed.

The creator doesn't get views unless someone clicks to play their video. Most people won't click to play the video.

Also this site makes no attempt to check if a video can be embedded before displaying the text.

[rfl890]

Seems like we're adding colour to bits again.