[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.

[_akhe]

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

But not a YouTube embed? Well we just disagree. That's what the embed is for.

Whether or not a video can be embedded is under the control of the creator in their YouTube dashboard, not this third-party site.

> There's no link to the channel, no credits from the video itself.

Not true at all, the creator is listed in a pretty big font size, and there is a literal YouTube embed that links to the video (and channel if you click the avatar). The creator gets the credit and ad revenue from the embed, the third-party site doesn't.

> This șite exists to take the work of others

Not true either, see the news site example, or any blog or tutorial site that references videos.

[mattl]

To quote you:

Do you know how YouTube embeds work?

This site summarizes videos regardless of their status on YouTube. Don't support embeds? Tough luck, this site will summarize your work either way and there's just a little box telling you that you could watch the video on YouTube.

This site exists to take the work of others. If not, please provide a link to the YouTube channel made by the person behind stepify and all their videos.

[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.