Search
959 results for “hsl”
-
THE ALGORITHM VS. THE HUMAN MIND: A LOSING BATTLE
¯_
NO RECOGNITION FOR THE AUTHORYouTube does not reward consistency, insight, or author reputation. A comment may become a “top comment” for a day, only to vanish the next. There’s no memory, no history of editorial value. The platform doesn’t surface authors who contribute regularly with structured, relevant input. There's no path for authorship to emerge or be noticed. The “like” system favors early commenters — the infamous firsts — who write “first,” “early,” or “30 seconds in” just after a video drops. These are the comments that rise to the top. Readers interact with the text, not the person behind it. This is by design. YouTube wants engagement to stay contained within the content creator’s channel, not spread toward the audience. A well-written comment should not amplify a small creator’s reach — that would disrupt the platform’s control over audience flow.
¯_
USERS WHO’VE STOPPED THINKINGThe algorithm trains people to wait for suggestions. Most users no longer take the initiative to explore or support anyone unless pushed by the system. Even when someone says something exceptional, the response remains cold. The author is just a font — not a presence. A familiar avatar doesn’t trigger curiosity. On these platforms, people follow only the already-famous. Anonymity is devalued by default. Most users would rather post their own comment (that no one will ever read) than reply to others. Interaction is solitary. YouTube, by design, encourages people to think only about themselves.
¯_
ZERO MODERATION FOR SMALL CREATORSSmall creators have no support when it comes to moderation. In low-traffic streams, there's no way to filter harassment or mockery. Trolls can show up just to enjoy someone else's failure — and nothing stops them. Unlike big streamers who can appoint moderators, smaller channels lack both the tools and the visibility to protect themselves. YouTube provides no built-in safety net, even though these creators are often the most exposed.
¯_
EXTERNAL LINKS ARE SABOTAGEDTrying to drive traffic to your own website? In the “About” section, YouTube adds a warning label to every external link: “You’re about to leave YouTube. This site may be unsafe.” It looks like an antivirus alert — not a routine redirect. It scares away casual users. And even if someone knows better, they still have to click again to confirm. That’s not protection — it’s manufactured discouragement. This cheap shot, disguised as safety, serves a single purpose: preventing viewers from leaving the ecosystem. YouTube has no authority to determine what is or isn’t a “safe” site beyond its own platform.
¯_
HUMANS CAN’T OUTPERFORM THE MACHINEAt every level, the human loses. You can’t outsmart an algorithm that filters, sorts, buries. You can’t even decide who you want to support: the system always intervenes. Talent alone isn’t enough. Courage isn’t enough. You need to break through a machine built to elevate the dominant and bury the rest. YouTube claims to be a platform for expression. But what it really offers is a simulated discovery engine — locked down and heavily policed.
¯#YouTubeCritique #AlgorithmicBias #DigitalLabour #IndieCreators #Shadowbanning #ContentModeration #PlatformJustice #AudienceManipulation
-
THE ALGORITHM VS. THE HUMAN MIND: A LOSING BATTLE
¯_
NO RECOGNITION FOR THE AUTHORYouTube does not reward consistency, insight, or author reputation. A comment may become a “top comment” for a day, only to vanish the next. There’s no memory, no history of editorial value. The platform doesn’t surface authors who contribute regularly with structured, relevant input. There's no path for authorship to emerge or be noticed. The “like” system favors early commenters — the infamous firsts — who write “first,” “early,” or “30 seconds in” just after a video drops. These are the comments that rise to the top. Readers interact with the text, not the person behind it. This is by design. YouTube wants engagement to stay contained within the content creator’s channel, not spread toward the audience. A well-written comment should not amplify a small creator’s reach — that would disrupt the platform’s control over audience flow.
¯_
USERS WHO’VE STOPPED THINKINGThe algorithm trains people to wait for suggestions. Most users no longer take the initiative to explore or support anyone unless pushed by the system. Even when someone says something exceptional, the response remains cold. The author is just a font — not a presence. A familiar avatar doesn’t trigger curiosity. On these platforms, people follow only the already-famous. Anonymity is devalued by default. Most users would rather post their own comment (that no one will ever read) than reply to others. Interaction is solitary. YouTube, by design, encourages people to think only about themselves.
¯_
ZERO MODERATION FOR SMALL CREATORSSmall creators have no support when it comes to moderation. In low-traffic streams, there's no way to filter harassment or mockery. Trolls can show up just to enjoy someone else's failure — and nothing stops them. Unlike big streamers who can appoint moderators, smaller channels lack both the tools and the visibility to protect themselves. YouTube provides no built-in safety net, even though these creators are often the most exposed.
¯_
EXTERNAL LINKS ARE SABOTAGEDTrying to drive traffic to your own website? In the “About” section, YouTube adds a warning label to every external link: “You’re about to leave YouTube. This site may be unsafe.” It looks like an antivirus alert — not a routine redirect. It scares away casual users. And even if someone knows better, they still have to click again to confirm. That’s not protection — it’s manufactured discouragement. This cheap shot, disguised as safety, serves a single purpose: preventing viewers from leaving the ecosystem. YouTube has no authority to determine what is or isn’t a “safe” site beyond its own platform.
¯_
HUMANS CAN’T OUTPERFORM THE MACHINEAt every level, the human loses. You can’t outsmart an algorithm that filters, sorts, buries. You can’t even decide who you want to support: the system always intervenes. Talent alone isn’t enough. Courage isn’t enough. You need to break through a machine built to elevate the dominant and bury the rest. YouTube claims to be a platform for expression. But what it really offers is a simulated discovery engine — locked down and heavily policed.
¯#YouTubeCritique #AlgorithmicBias #DigitalLabour #IndieCreators #Shadowbanning #ContentModeration #PlatformJustice #AudienceManipulation
-
Oletko koskaan jäänyt jumiin toimimattoman sovelluksen takia? Minä melkein jäin – keskelle kaupunkia ilman junalippua. #HSL:n sovellus päätti lakata näyttämästä sarjalippujani ja estää uusien ostamisen. Mikään perinteinen kikka – uudelleenkäynnistys, välimuistin tyhjennys – ei auttanut. Lopulta ratkaisu oli sovelluksen palautus tehdasasetuksille.
Mutta osaisitko sinä tehdä sen, jos tilanne yllättäisi? 👉 https://youtu.be/TU33PoUV4O8
-
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK FOR TWELVE YEARS ACROSS FOUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND EARN ZERO EUROS?
May 8, 2025No salary. No contract. No human contact. Just algorithms, silence, and legal dead ends. From Uber Eats to YouTube, from Drivy to Twitch, this is the story of a worker who never stopped — and was never paid. Behind the illusion of flexibility lies a system designed to erase, isolate, and discard. There are no managers to talk to. No offices to visit. No recourse when you’re erased. Don’t Contact YouTube isn’t a cry for help. It’s an appeal to the law. Because recognition won’t come from platforms — it will come from court rulings. Read the full story now.
¯_
DON’T CONTACT YOUTUBEHaving an online activity means relying on partners… who are also online. We depend on social networks that index our content arbitrarily, on software we no longer own but rent monthly, on freelancers scattered across the globe and connected through platforms headquartered abroad. This model, often praised as “modern” or “flexible,” is in reality a legal nightmare. You can’t just grab your coat and go talk to these partners. You can’t write to them. You can’t call them. You can’t even appoint a lawyer: their offices are located outside France, and even when local jurisdiction would be required by law, platforms contractually enforce the jurisdiction of their own country — which already constitutes a violation, notably under Articles L.111-1 and L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code, or European Directive 2011/83/EU.
¯_
JOURNALISTS ALREADY SPOKE OUTFrench journalist Sébastien-Abdelhamid turned it into a running gag on the show On n’est pas des pigeons (France 4). He flew to the United States, spent hours on a plane, just to film himself standing in front of the Facebook or Google headquarters… and being told by a security guard: “You’re not getting in.” Those sequences are a goldmine to understand the problem. These companies behave like mafias: physical gatekeeping, security guards instead of reception staff, no way to access the offices — not even to drop off a resume.
¯_
A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE KIND OF VIOLENCEOnline, this power dynamic becomes invisible. It manifests as a more subtle, insidious form of violence: bots, FAQ pages, contact forms that never get a reply. You don’t give up because you’re lazy, or because you didn’t try. You give up because it is factually impossible to speak to a human being at these companies.
¯_
THE FRENCH STATE IS COMPLICITIn this age of normalized brutality, governments turn a blind eye.
I filed a complaint against the French State. Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code states that the failure to assist a person in danger can apply to anyone — including the State — when aware of an ongoing threat. The lack of action in the face of GAFAM dominance is a failure of duty. These giants rule unchallenged, while everyone else either submits to them… or silently collapses.
¯_
THE LAW REQUIRES CUSTOMER SUPPORTLet’s be clear: every company is legally required to provide customer service. This is a legal obligation under French law. And in professional contexts involving payments or partnerships, the penalties can be even more severe. When your ability to eat depends on an algorithm — and you have no way to appeal — the very notion of “business” becomes a farce.
¯#DigitalLabour #PlatformExploitation #InvisibleWork #JusticeForFreelancers
-
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK FOR TWELVE YEARS ACROSS FOUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND EARN ZERO EUROS?
May 8, 2025No salary. No contract. No human contact. Just algorithms, silence, and legal dead ends. From Uber Eats to YouTube, from Drivy to Twitch, this is the story of a worker who never stopped — and was never paid. Behind the illusion of flexibility lies a system designed to erase, isolate, and discard. There are no managers to talk to. No offices to visit. No recourse when you’re erased. Don’t Contact YouTube isn’t a cry for help. It’s an appeal to the law. Because recognition won’t come from platforms — it will come from court rulings. Read the full story now.
¯_
DON’T CONTACT YOUTUBEHaving an online activity means relying on partners… who are also online. We depend on social networks that index our content arbitrarily, on software we no longer own but rent monthly, on freelancers scattered across the globe and connected through platforms headquartered abroad. This model, often praised as “modern” or “flexible,” is in reality a legal nightmare. You can’t just grab your coat and go talk to these partners. You can’t write to them. You can’t call them. You can’t even appoint a lawyer: their offices are located outside France, and even when local jurisdiction would be required by law, platforms contractually enforce the jurisdiction of their own country — which already constitutes a violation, notably under Articles L.111-1 and L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code, or European Directive 2011/83/EU.
¯_
JOURNALISTS ALREADY SPOKE OUTFrench journalist Sébastien-Abdelhamid turned it into a running gag on the show On n’est pas des pigeons (France 4). He flew to the United States, spent hours on a plane, just to film himself standing in front of the Facebook or Google headquarters… and being told by a security guard: “You’re not getting in.” Those sequences are a goldmine to understand the problem. These companies behave like mafias: physical gatekeeping, security guards instead of reception staff, no way to access the offices — not even to drop off a resume.
¯_
A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE KIND OF VIOLENCEOnline, this power dynamic becomes invisible. It manifests as a more subtle, insidious form of violence: bots, FAQ pages, contact forms that never get a reply. You don’t give up because you’re lazy, or because you didn’t try. You give up because it is factually impossible to speak to a human being at these companies.
¯_
THE FRENCH STATE IS COMPLICITIn this age of normalized brutality, governments turn a blind eye.
I filed a complaint against the French State. Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code states that the failure to assist a person in danger can apply to anyone — including the State — when aware of an ongoing threat. The lack of action in the face of GAFAM dominance is a failure of duty. These giants rule unchallenged, while everyone else either submits to them… or silently collapses.
¯_
THE LAW REQUIRES CUSTOMER SUPPORTLet’s be clear: every company is legally required to provide customer service. This is a legal obligation under French law. And in professional contexts involving payments or partnerships, the penalties can be even more severe. When your ability to eat depends on an algorithm — and you have no way to appeal — the very notion of “business” becomes a farce.
¯#DigitalLabour #PlatformExploitation #InvisibleWork #JusticeForFreelancers
-
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK FOR TWELVE YEARS ACROSS FOUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND EARN ZERO EUROS?
May 8, 2025No salary. No contract. No human contact. Just algorithms, silence, and legal dead ends. From Uber Eats to YouTube, from Drivy to Twitch, this is the story of a worker who never stopped — and was never paid. Behind the illusion of flexibility lies a system designed to erase, isolate, and discard. There are no managers to talk to. No offices to visit. No recourse when you’re erased. Don’t Contact YouTube isn’t a cry for help. It’s an appeal to the law. Because recognition won’t come from platforms — it will come from court rulings. Read the full story now.
¯_
DON’T CONTACT YOUTUBEHaving an online activity means relying on partners… who are also online. We depend on social networks that index our content arbitrarily, on software we no longer own but rent monthly, on freelancers scattered across the globe and connected through platforms headquartered abroad. This model, often praised as “modern” or “flexible,” is in reality a legal nightmare. You can’t just grab your coat and go talk to these partners. You can’t write to them. You can’t call them. You can’t even appoint a lawyer: their offices are located outside France, and even when local jurisdiction would be required by law, platforms contractually enforce the jurisdiction of their own country — which already constitutes a violation, notably under Articles L.111-1 and L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code, or European Directive 2011/83/EU.
¯_
JOURNALISTS ALREADY SPOKE OUTFrench journalist Sébastien-Abdelhamid turned it into a running gag on the show On n’est pas des pigeons (France 4). He flew to the United States, spent hours on a plane, just to film himself standing in front of the Facebook or Google headquarters… and being told by a security guard: “You’re not getting in.” Those sequences are a goldmine to understand the problem. These companies behave like mafias: physical gatekeeping, security guards instead of reception staff, no way to access the offices — not even to drop off a resume.
¯_
A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE KIND OF VIOLENCEOnline, this power dynamic becomes invisible. It manifests as a more subtle, insidious form of violence: bots, FAQ pages, contact forms that never get a reply. You don’t give up because you’re lazy, or because you didn’t try. You give up because it is factually impossible to speak to a human being at these companies.
¯_
THE FRENCH STATE IS COMPLICITIn this age of normalized brutality, governments turn a blind eye.
I filed a complaint against the French State. Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code states that the failure to assist a person in danger can apply to anyone — including the State — when aware of an ongoing threat. The lack of action in the face of GAFAM dominance is a failure of duty. These giants rule unchallenged, while everyone else either submits to them… or silently collapses.
¯_
THE LAW REQUIRES CUSTOMER SUPPORTLet’s be clear: every company is legally required to provide customer service. This is a legal obligation under French law. And in professional contexts involving payments or partnerships, the penalties can be even more severe. When your ability to eat depends on an algorithm — and you have no way to appeal — the very notion of “business” becomes a farce.
¯#DigitalLabour #PlatformExploitation #InvisibleWork #JusticeForFreelancers
-
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK FOR TWELVE YEARS ACROSS FOUR DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND EARN ZERO EUROS?
May 8, 2025No salary. No contract. No human contact. Just algorithms, silence, and legal dead ends. From Uber Eats to YouTube, from Drivy to Twitch, this is the story of a worker who never stopped — and was never paid. Behind the illusion of flexibility lies a system designed to erase, isolate, and discard. There are no managers to talk to. No offices to visit. No recourse when you’re erased. Don’t Contact YouTube isn’t a cry for help. It’s an appeal to the law. Because recognition won’t come from platforms — it will come from court rulings. Read the full story now.
¯_
DON’T CONTACT YOUTUBEHaving an online activity means relying on partners… who are also online. We depend on social networks that index our content arbitrarily, on software we no longer own but rent monthly, on freelancers scattered across the globe and connected through platforms headquartered abroad. This model, often praised as “modern” or “flexible,” is in reality a legal nightmare. You can’t just grab your coat and go talk to these partners. You can’t write to them. You can’t call them. You can’t even appoint a lawyer: their offices are located outside France, and even when local jurisdiction would be required by law, platforms contractually enforce the jurisdiction of their own country — which already constitutes a violation, notably under Articles L.111-1 and L.221-1 of the French Consumer Code, or European Directive 2011/83/EU.
¯_
JOURNALISTS ALREADY SPOKE OUTFrench journalist Sébastien-Abdelhamid turned it into a running gag on the show On n’est pas des pigeons (France 4). He flew to the United States, spent hours on a plane, just to film himself standing in front of the Facebook or Google headquarters… and being told by a security guard: “You’re not getting in.” Those sequences are a goldmine to understand the problem. These companies behave like mafias: physical gatekeeping, security guards instead of reception staff, no way to access the offices — not even to drop off a resume.
¯_
A PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE KIND OF VIOLENCEOnline, this power dynamic becomes invisible. It manifests as a more subtle, insidious form of violence: bots, FAQ pages, contact forms that never get a reply. You don’t give up because you’re lazy, or because you didn’t try. You give up because it is factually impossible to speak to a human being at these companies.
¯_
THE FRENCH STATE IS COMPLICITIn this age of normalized brutality, governments turn a blind eye.
I filed a complaint against the French State. Article 223-6 of the French Penal Code states that the failure to assist a person in danger can apply to anyone — including the State — when aware of an ongoing threat. The lack of action in the face of GAFAM dominance is a failure of duty. These giants rule unchallenged, while everyone else either submits to them… or silently collapses.
¯_
THE LAW REQUIRES CUSTOMER SUPPORTLet’s be clear: every company is legally required to provide customer service. This is a legal obligation under French law. And in professional contexts involving payments or partnerships, the penalties can be even more severe. When your ability to eat depends on an algorithm — and you have no way to appeal — the very notion of “business” becomes a farce.
¯#DigitalLabour #PlatformExploitation #InvisibleWork #JusticeForFreelancers
-
HOUSE STATION LIVE: A COLLECTIVE SABOTAGED
Of course, I edited and hosted most of the videos myself. But House Station Live was never meant to be the project of a lone individual. It was a collective—a platform to showcase young talent, not yet another vlog centered on my own persona. This YouTube channel was supposed to serve as the launch campaign for an ambitious webTV, broadcasting 24/7 on our own servers. An alternative to traditional media, with our rules, our voices, our style. But very quickly, I had to put House Station Live on hold. YouTube was too demanding. And paradoxically, it was the only way not to end up in debt.
¯_
JOSÉ, DINOH, KÉVINI worked with several presenters:
- José, charismatic but without his own following,
- Dinoh, competent but limited by lack of visibility,
- And Kévin, a freelance editor I hired for some episodes.
I spent a tremendous amount of time organizing castings, looking for hosts, trying to convince people. But how do you persuade someone to represent a channel that gets 20 views—even with decent pay? Even "generous" payments weren’t enough to keep people motivated. Eventually, candidates dropped out.
¯_
THE TRAP OF FULL-TIME COMMITMENTI no longer had the means to produce both House Station Live and YouTube content in parallel. So I bet everything on the platform. YouTube consumed me. Managing production, editing, recruitment, technical direction, scheduling, testing formats, durations, themes, hosts—I tried it all:
- Videos from 1 to 50 minutes,
- On all kinds of topics: video games, Formula 1, news, reviews, let’s plays.
But convincing a freelancer to commit long-term at a low rate is a nightmare. I couldn’t afford to pay for many hours or high rates. My channel brought in zero revenue. I had nothing to reinvest.
¯_
A TEAM SACRIFICEDAnd yet, I tried. House Station Live wasn’t just a personal project. It was a collective hope. A launchpad. Momentum. We wanted to build an audience ahead of time, so that once the set was ready, we could immediately produce, publish, and exist. But in reality, YouTube swiped us away with a single gesture—like a Tinder match rejected with a left swipe. And it cost them nothing. No time. No money. No emotional weight.
¯_
A CHANNEL, A GRINDERYouTube contributes nothing to the creation of videos. It has no personal interest in whether your content finds its audience. The algorithm sorts, tests, eliminates. It's math-driven, disembodied, dehumanized. And the creator falls alone. On TV, you don’t air a million-euro show at 4 a.m. There’s programming, a respect for what’s been produced. On YouTube, no distinction: whether your video cost €10,000 or €0, it’s treated the same.
¯_
A FRUSTRATED AUDIENCE, A BROKEN CREATOR13-year-old trolls watch your content for 5 seconds, dislike your face, and move on. The algorithm knows this—and exploits it. It drives hatred and constant frustration, so you keep trying harder. For nothing. And if you dare believe your freshness, creativity, and sincerity will resonate... you crash into a machine that despises who you are.
¯#IndieCreators #CollectiveMedia #YouTubeStruggles #DigitalBurnout #PlatformExploitation #SmallCreators #CreatorEconomy #HopeSabotaged
-
HOUSE STATION LIVE: A COLLECTIVE SABOTAGED
Of course, I edited and hosted most of the videos myself. But House Station Live was never meant to be the project of a lone individual. It was a collective—a platform to showcase young talent, not yet another vlog centered on my own persona. This YouTube channel was supposed to serve as the launch campaign for an ambitious webTV, broadcasting 24/7 on our own servers. An alternative to traditional media, with our rules, our voices, our style. But very quickly, I had to put House Station Live on hold. YouTube was too demanding. And paradoxically, it was the only way not to end up in debt.
¯_
JOSÉ, DINOH, KÉVINI worked with several presenters:
- José, charismatic but without his own following,
- Dinoh, competent but limited by lack of visibility,
- And Kévin, a freelance editor I hired for some episodes.
I spent a tremendous amount of time organizing castings, looking for hosts, trying to convince people. But how do you persuade someone to represent a channel that gets 20 views—even with decent pay? Even "generous" payments weren’t enough to keep people motivated. Eventually, candidates dropped out.
¯_
THE TRAP OF FULL-TIME COMMITMENTI no longer had the means to produce both House Station Live and YouTube content in parallel. So I bet everything on the platform. YouTube consumed me. Managing production, editing, recruitment, technical direction, scheduling, testing formats, durations, themes, hosts—I tried it all:
- Videos from 1 to 50 minutes,
- On all kinds of topics: video games, Formula 1, news, reviews, let’s plays.
But convincing a freelancer to commit long-term at a low rate is a nightmare. I couldn’t afford to pay for many hours or high rates. My channel brought in zero revenue. I had nothing to reinvest.
¯_
A TEAM SACRIFICEDAnd yet, I tried. House Station Live wasn’t just a personal project. It was a collective hope. A launchpad. Momentum. We wanted to build an audience ahead of time, so that once the set was ready, we could immediately produce, publish, and exist. But in reality, YouTube swiped us away with a single gesture—like a Tinder match rejected with a left swipe. And it cost them nothing. No time. No money. No emotional weight.
¯_
A CHANNEL, A GRINDERYouTube contributes nothing to the creation of videos. It has no personal interest in whether your content finds its audience. The algorithm sorts, tests, eliminates. It's math-driven, disembodied, dehumanized. And the creator falls alone. On TV, you don’t air a million-euro show at 4 a.m. There’s programming, a respect for what’s been produced. On YouTube, no distinction: whether your video cost €10,000 or €0, it’s treated the same.
¯_
A FRUSTRATED AUDIENCE, A BROKEN CREATOR13-year-old trolls watch your content for 5 seconds, dislike your face, and move on. The algorithm knows this—and exploits it. It drives hatred and constant frustration, so you keep trying harder. For nothing. And if you dare believe your freshness, creativity, and sincerity will resonate... you crash into a machine that despises who you are.
¯#IndieCreators #CollectiveMedia #YouTubeStruggles #DigitalBurnout #PlatformExploitation #SmallCreators #CreatorEconomy #HopeSabotaged
-
HOUSE STATION LIVE: A COLLECTIVE SABOTAGED
Of course, I edited and hosted most of the videos myself. But House Station Live was never meant to be the project of a lone individual. It was a collective—a platform to showcase young talent, not yet another vlog centered on my own persona. This YouTube channel was supposed to serve as the launch campaign for an ambitious webTV, broadcasting 24/7 on our own servers. An alternative to traditional media, with our rules, our voices, our style. But very quickly, I had to put House Station Live on hold. YouTube was too demanding. And paradoxically, it was the only way not to end up in debt.
¯_
JOSÉ, DINOH, KÉVINI worked with several presenters:
- José, charismatic but without his own following,
- Dinoh, competent but limited by lack of visibility,
- And Kévin, a freelance editor I hired for some episodes.
I spent a tremendous amount of time organizing castings, looking for hosts, trying to convince people. But how do you persuade someone to represent a channel that gets 20 views—even with decent pay? Even "generous" payments weren’t enough to keep people motivated. Eventually, candidates dropped out.
¯_
THE TRAP OF FULL-TIME COMMITMENTI no longer had the means to produce both House Station Live and YouTube content in parallel. So I bet everything on the platform. YouTube consumed me. Managing production, editing, recruitment, technical direction, scheduling, testing formats, durations, themes, hosts—I tried it all:
- Videos from 1 to 50 minutes,
- On all kinds of topics: video games, Formula 1, news, reviews, let’s plays.
But convincing a freelancer to commit long-term at a low rate is a nightmare. I couldn’t afford to pay for many hours or high rates. My channel brought in zero revenue. I had nothing to reinvest.
¯_
A TEAM SACRIFICEDAnd yet, I tried. House Station Live wasn’t just a personal project. It was a collective hope. A launchpad. Momentum. We wanted to build an audience ahead of time, so that once the set was ready, we could immediately produce, publish, and exist. But in reality, YouTube swiped us away with a single gesture—like a Tinder match rejected with a left swipe. And it cost them nothing. No time. No money. No emotional weight.
¯_
A CHANNEL, A GRINDERYouTube contributes nothing to the creation of videos. It has no personal interest in whether your content finds its audience. The algorithm sorts, tests, eliminates. It's math-driven, disembodied, dehumanized. And the creator falls alone. On TV, you don’t air a million-euro show at 4 a.m. There’s programming, a respect for what’s been produced. On YouTube, no distinction: whether your video cost €10,000 or €0, it’s treated the same.
¯_
A FRUSTRATED AUDIENCE, A BROKEN CREATOR13-year-old trolls watch your content for 5 seconds, dislike your face, and move on. The algorithm knows this—and exploits it. It drives hatred and constant frustration, so you keep trying harder. For nothing. And if you dare believe your freshness, creativity, and sincerity will resonate... you crash into a machine that despises who you are.
¯#IndieCreators #CollectiveMedia #YouTubeStruggles #DigitalBurnout #PlatformExploitation #SmallCreators #CreatorEconomy #HopeSabotaged
-
HOUSE STATION LIVE: A COLLECTIVE SABOTAGED
Of course, I edited and hosted most of the videos myself. But House Station Live was never meant to be the project of a lone individual. It was a collective—a platform to showcase young talent, not yet another vlog centered on my own persona. This YouTube channel was supposed to serve as the launch campaign for an ambitious webTV, broadcasting 24/7 on our own servers. An alternative to traditional media, with our rules, our voices, our style. But very quickly, I had to put House Station Live on hold. YouTube was too demanding. And paradoxically, it was the only way not to end up in debt.
¯_
JOSÉ, DINOH, KÉVINI worked with several presenters:
- José, charismatic but without his own following,
- Dinoh, competent but limited by lack of visibility,
- And Kévin, a freelance editor I hired for some episodes.
I spent a tremendous amount of time organizing castings, looking for hosts, trying to convince people. But how do you persuade someone to represent a channel that gets 20 views—even with decent pay? Even "generous" payments weren’t enough to keep people motivated. Eventually, candidates dropped out.
¯_
THE TRAP OF FULL-TIME COMMITMENTI no longer had the means to produce both House Station Live and YouTube content in parallel. So I bet everything on the platform. YouTube consumed me. Managing production, editing, recruitment, technical direction, scheduling, testing formats, durations, themes, hosts—I tried it all:
- Videos from 1 to 50 minutes,
- On all kinds of topics: video games, Formula 1, news, reviews, let’s plays.
But convincing a freelancer to commit long-term at a low rate is a nightmare. I couldn’t afford to pay for many hours or high rates. My channel brought in zero revenue. I had nothing to reinvest.
¯_
A TEAM SACRIFICEDAnd yet, I tried. House Station Live wasn’t just a personal project. It was a collective hope. A launchpad. Momentum. We wanted to build an audience ahead of time, so that once the set was ready, we could immediately produce, publish, and exist. But in reality, YouTube swiped us away with a single gesture—like a Tinder match rejected with a left swipe. And it cost them nothing. No time. No money. No emotional weight.
¯_
A CHANNEL, A GRINDERYouTube contributes nothing to the creation of videos. It has no personal interest in whether your content finds its audience. The algorithm sorts, tests, eliminates. It's math-driven, disembodied, dehumanized. And the creator falls alone. On TV, you don’t air a million-euro show at 4 a.m. There’s programming, a respect for what’s been produced. On YouTube, no distinction: whether your video cost €10,000 or €0, it’s treated the same.
¯_
A FRUSTRATED AUDIENCE, A BROKEN CREATOR13-year-old trolls watch your content for 5 seconds, dislike your face, and move on. The algorithm knows this—and exploits it. It drives hatred and constant frustration, so you keep trying harder. For nothing. And if you dare believe your freshness, creativity, and sincerity will resonate... you crash into a machine that despises who you are.
¯#IndieCreators #CollectiveMedia #YouTubeStruggles #DigitalBurnout #PlatformExploitation #SmallCreators #CreatorEconomy #HopeSabotaged
-
Pitäisiköhän liittyä Raitioseuraan, jospa siellä olisi väkeä jolta voisi kysyä sisäpiiritietoa tästä kiinnostavasta asiasta...? #jokeri #kaupunkiliikenne #hsl
-
Käytän julkisia paljon, lähinnä metroa, ja oon tullut kiinnittäkseeni huomiota 'etikettiohjeisiin', jotka HSL on tehnyt. Nämä ohjeet muodostuvat kuva ja kuvateksti -pareista ja huomasin, että monissa niistä kuva ja teksti ovat ristiriidassa keskenään.
Kirjoitinpa siitä sitten blogin, jossa aika vapaasti lainailen myös Selkeästi meille -hankkeen kognitiivisen saavutettavuuden ohjeita (verkkosivuille).
HSL:n etikettiohjeiden hämmentävä kuvakieli: https://samimaatta.fi/kirjoitukset/hsl-n-etikettiohjeiden-hammentava-kuvakieli/
-
Käytän julkisia paljon, lähinnä metroa, ja oon tullut kiinnittäkseeni huomiota 'etikettiohjeisiin', jotka HSL on tehnyt. Nämä ohjeet muodostuvat kuva ja kuvateksti -pareista ja huomasin, että monissa niistä kuva ja teksti ovat ristiriidassa keskenään.
Kirjoitinpa siitä sitten blogin, jossa aika vapaasti lainailen myös Selkeästi meille -hankkeen kognitiivisen saavutettavuuden ohjeita (verkkosivuille).
HSL:n etikettiohjeiden hämmentävä kuvakieli: https://samimaatta.fi/kirjoitukset/hsl-n-etikettiohjeiden-hammentava-kuvakieli/
-
Käytän julkisia paljon, lähinnä metroa, ja oon tullut kiinnittäkseeni huomiota 'etikettiohjeisiin', jotka HSL on tehnyt. Nämä ohjeet muodostuvat kuva ja kuvateksti -pareista ja huomasin, että monissa niistä kuva ja teksti ovat ristiriidassa keskenään.
Kirjoitinpa siitä sitten blogin, jossa aika vapaasti lainailen myös Selkeästi meille -hankkeen kognitiivisen saavutettavuuden ohjeita (verkkosivuille).
HSL:n etikettiohjeiden hämmentävä kuvakieli: https://samimaatta.fi/kirjoitukset/hsl-n-etikettiohjeiden-hammentava-kuvakieli/
-
THE INCREDIBLE REASON HOUSE STATION LIVE CHANGED SERVERS
Or a survival guide for e-businesses facing bans or legal disputes with a platformFor nearly two years, we watched our entire platform become invisible. Not because of bad content, policy violations, or lack of effort... but because of a silent algorithmic shadowban. We had no warnings, no appeals, and no answers. Worse: under YouTube’s terms of service, any legal dispute must be handled in a U.S. court (even if you're based in France and pay taxes there). This is how global platforms sidestep national laws... and why creators are left legally unprotected in their own countries.
¯_
PART ONE – WHEN A SHADOWBAN SHUTS DOWN YOUR BUSINESS
¯_
Two years ago, we left Dedibox, a French hosting company we judged incapable of meeting even our most basic expectations in terms of customer service. In a field as critical as data hosting, the professionalism of the technical support team cannot be optional... it must be the company's showcase, the reassuring human face you turn to when something goes wrong. This pursuit of reliability led us to GoDaddy, based in Arizona, whose configuration tools, WordPress diagnostics, interface design, and especially their technically skilled support team had earned our trust... far beyond the empty promises of typical commercial discourse. But everything collapsed suddenly, swept away by a digital catastrophe we didn’t see coming. A brutal, invisible blow: the shadowban. House Station Live was ghosted (to use the terminology of our virtual assistant, GPT). Disappeared from search results, ignored by YouTube recommendations, erased from the Android Play Store. For eighteen months, despite heavy investments and extensive testing in formats, lengths, languages, thumbnails, titles, even hosts, nothing changed. Every video was locked between 20 and 30 views. We were trapped in that narrow range, with no human contact, no way to file a complaint, and no hope of improvement.Facing this algorithmic wall, we made the only logical decision: open an investigation and build a legal case. Not to prove a “perfect crime” but to demonstrate that even the most opaque algorithms leave traces. During this inquiry, we came across a particularly disturbing fact: according to YouTube’s terms of use, any dispute must be brought before a U.S. judge. It doesn’t matter that you are based in France, targeting a French audience, or that French law requires foreign companies to have a legal presence in the country... Google circumvents this by distinguishing between headquarters, local offices, and legal jurisdiction. The result is clear: you are automatically excluded from the protection of your own legal system. This system is so airtight that very few individuals or businesses attempt legal action against Google. The GAFAM is protected by a lethal triad: algorithmic opacity, extraterritorial legal shielding, and the complicity of a U.S. government that views tech giants as national pride (even strategic weapons in the global information war). While France leaves its citizens exposed and helpless against digital abuse, the United States has conquered the Internet on a global scale by imposing its law as if it were sovereign territory.
To illustrate just how absurd and dangerous this has become, let’s take the example of music licensing. Every month, House Station Live pays royalties to SACEM, the French government’s music rights agency. In return, we are legally authorized to broadcast commercial works, provided we submit monthly playlists so that royalties can be fairly distributed to artists. In theory, everything is legal and in order. But the United States has its own system: the DMCA. And if you stream House Station Live through any platform based in the U.S. (like GoDaddy, YouTube, etc.), you are automatically subject to U.S. law, even if your legal entity is based in France. France, in turn, declares itself incompetent in such cases because the “crime scene” is legally located on American soil, where the servers are hosted. So the SACEM fee we pay offers zero protection, neither domestically nor abroad... where we’re treated like pirates. Imagine buying a product from a foreign website: you pay the foreign VAT, a currency conversion fee, and then the French customs tax. Three layers of taxation. A 30 € item ends up costing you 150 €. That’s digital over-taxation. And the same applies to our royalties.
Worse still, the U.S. considers you to be operating on their soil the moment your server is physically located there... regardless of where you are based, where your company is registered, or what contracts you’ve signed with your local rights agencies. Even if your SACEM contract is supposedly international, it offers you no protection in this skewed legal context. The U.S. has simply annexed the Internet, claimed it as their jurisdiction, and imposed their extraterritorial laws on the rest of the world (without any international mandate or global consent).
¯#Shadowban #Censorship #YouTube #DMCA #DigitalRights #FrenchTech #AlgorithmBias #GoogleAbuse #PlatformAbuse #Justice
-
THE INCREDIBLE REASON HOUSE STATION LIVE CHANGED SERVERS
Or a survival guide for e-businesses facing bans or legal disputes with a platformFor nearly two years, we watched our entire platform become invisible. Not because of bad content, policy violations, or lack of effort... but because of a silent algorithmic shadowban. We had no warnings, no appeals, and no answers. Worse: under YouTube’s terms of service, any legal dispute must be handled in a U.S. court (even if you're based in France and pay taxes there). This is how global platforms sidestep national laws... and why creators are left legally unprotected in their own countries.
¯_
PART ONE – WHEN A SHADOWBAN SHUTS DOWN YOUR BUSINESS
¯_
Two years ago, we left Dedibox, a French hosting company we judged incapable of meeting even our most basic expectations in terms of customer service. In a field as critical as data hosting, the professionalism of the technical support team cannot be optional... it must be the company's showcase, the reassuring human face you turn to when something goes wrong. This pursuit of reliability led us to GoDaddy, based in Arizona, whose configuration tools, WordPress diagnostics, interface design, and especially their technically skilled support team had earned our trust... far beyond the empty promises of typical commercial discourse. But everything collapsed suddenly, swept away by a digital catastrophe we didn’t see coming. A brutal, invisible blow: the shadowban. House Station Live was ghosted (to use the terminology of our virtual assistant, GPT). Disappeared from search results, ignored by YouTube recommendations, erased from the Android Play Store. For eighteen months, despite heavy investments and extensive testing in formats, lengths, languages, thumbnails, titles, even hosts, nothing changed. Every video was locked between 20 and 30 views. We were trapped in that narrow range, with no human contact, no way to file a complaint, and no hope of improvement.Facing this algorithmic wall, we made the only logical decision: open an investigation and build a legal case. Not to prove a “perfect crime” but to demonstrate that even the most opaque algorithms leave traces. During this inquiry, we came across a particularly disturbing fact: according to YouTube’s terms of use, any dispute must be brought before a U.S. judge. It doesn’t matter that you are based in France, targeting a French audience, or that French law requires foreign companies to have a legal presence in the country... Google circumvents this by distinguishing between headquarters, local offices, and legal jurisdiction. The result is clear: you are automatically excluded from the protection of your own legal system. This system is so airtight that very few individuals or businesses attempt legal action against Google. The GAFAM is protected by a lethal triad: algorithmic opacity, extraterritorial legal shielding, and the complicity of a U.S. government that views tech giants as national pride (even strategic weapons in the global information war). While France leaves its citizens exposed and helpless against digital abuse, the United States has conquered the Internet on a global scale by imposing its law as if it were sovereign territory.
To illustrate just how absurd and dangerous this has become, let’s take the example of music licensing. Every month, House Station Live pays royalties to SACEM, the French government’s music rights agency. In return, we are legally authorized to broadcast commercial works, provided we submit monthly playlists so that royalties can be fairly distributed to artists. In theory, everything is legal and in order. But the United States has its own system: the DMCA. And if you stream House Station Live through any platform based in the U.S. (like GoDaddy, YouTube, etc.), you are automatically subject to U.S. law, even if your legal entity is based in France. France, in turn, declares itself incompetent in such cases because the “crime scene” is legally located on American soil, where the servers are hosted. So the SACEM fee we pay offers zero protection, neither domestically nor abroad... where we’re treated like pirates. Imagine buying a product from a foreign website: you pay the foreign VAT, a currency conversion fee, and then the French customs tax. Three layers of taxation. A 30 € item ends up costing you 150 €. That’s digital over-taxation. And the same applies to our royalties.
Worse still, the U.S. considers you to be operating on their soil the moment your server is physically located there... regardless of where you are based, where your company is registered, or what contracts you’ve signed with your local rights agencies. Even if your SACEM contract is supposedly international, it offers you no protection in this skewed legal context. The U.S. has simply annexed the Internet, claimed it as their jurisdiction, and imposed their extraterritorial laws on the rest of the world (without any international mandate or global consent).
¯#Shadowban #Censorship #YouTube #DMCA #DigitalRights #FrenchTech #AlgorithmBias #GoogleAbuse #PlatformAbuse #Justice
-
THE INCREDIBLE REASON HOUSE STATION LIVE CHANGED SERVERS
Or a survival guide for e-businesses facing bans or legal disputes with a platformFor nearly two years, we watched our entire platform become invisible. Not because of bad content, policy violations, or lack of effort... but because of a silent algorithmic shadowban. We had no warnings, no appeals, and no answers. Worse: under YouTube’s terms of service, any legal dispute must be handled in a U.S. court (even if you're based in France and pay taxes there). This is how global platforms sidestep national laws... and why creators are left legally unprotected in their own countries.
¯_
PART ONE – WHEN A SHADOWBAN SHUTS DOWN YOUR BUSINESS
¯_
Two years ago, we left Dedibox, a French hosting company we judged incapable of meeting even our most basic expectations in terms of customer service. In a field as critical as data hosting, the professionalism of the technical support team cannot be optional... it must be the company's showcase, the reassuring human face you turn to when something goes wrong. This pursuit of reliability led us to GoDaddy, based in Arizona, whose configuration tools, WordPress diagnostics, interface design, and especially their technically skilled support team had earned our trust... far beyond the empty promises of typical commercial discourse. But everything collapsed suddenly, swept away by a digital catastrophe we didn’t see coming. A brutal, invisible blow: the shadowban. House Station Live was ghosted (to use the terminology of our virtual assistant, GPT). Disappeared from search results, ignored by YouTube recommendations, erased from the Android Play Store. For eighteen months, despite heavy investments and extensive testing in formats, lengths, languages, thumbnails, titles, even hosts, nothing changed. Every video was locked between 20 and 30 views. We were trapped in that narrow range, with no human contact, no way to file a complaint, and no hope of improvement.Facing this algorithmic wall, we made the only logical decision: open an investigation and build a legal case. Not to prove a “perfect crime” but to demonstrate that even the most opaque algorithms leave traces. During this inquiry, we came across a particularly disturbing fact: according to YouTube’s terms of use, any dispute must be brought before a U.S. judge. It doesn’t matter that you are based in France, targeting a French audience, or that French law requires foreign companies to have a legal presence in the country... Google circumvents this by distinguishing between headquarters, local offices, and legal jurisdiction. The result is clear: you are automatically excluded from the protection of your own legal system. This system is so airtight that very few individuals or businesses attempt legal action against Google. The GAFAM is protected by a lethal triad: algorithmic opacity, extraterritorial legal shielding, and the complicity of a U.S. government that views tech giants as national pride (even strategic weapons in the global information war). While France leaves its citizens exposed and helpless against digital abuse, the United States has conquered the Internet on a global scale by imposing its law as if it were sovereign territory.
To illustrate just how absurd and dangerous this has become, let’s take the example of music licensing. Every month, House Station Live pays royalties to SACEM, the French government’s music rights agency. In return, we are legally authorized to broadcast commercial works, provided we submit monthly playlists so that royalties can be fairly distributed to artists. In theory, everything is legal and in order. But the United States has its own system: the DMCA. And if you stream House Station Live through any platform based in the U.S. (like GoDaddy, YouTube, etc.), you are automatically subject to U.S. law, even if your legal entity is based in France. France, in turn, declares itself incompetent in such cases because the “crime scene” is legally located on American soil, where the servers are hosted. So the SACEM fee we pay offers zero protection, neither domestically nor abroad... where we’re treated like pirates. Imagine buying a product from a foreign website: you pay the foreign VAT, a currency conversion fee, and then the French customs tax. Three layers of taxation. A 30 € item ends up costing you 150 €. That’s digital over-taxation. And the same applies to our royalties.
Worse still, the U.S. considers you to be operating on their soil the moment your server is physically located there... regardless of where you are based, where your company is registered, or what contracts you’ve signed with your local rights agencies. Even if your SACEM contract is supposedly international, it offers you no protection in this skewed legal context. The U.S. has simply annexed the Internet, claimed it as their jurisdiction, and imposed their extraterritorial laws on the rest of the world (without any international mandate or global consent).
¯#Shadowban #Censorship #YouTube #DMCA #DigitalRights #FrenchTech #AlgorithmBias #GoogleAbuse #PlatformAbuse #Justice
-
THE INCREDIBLE REASON HOUSE STATION LIVE CHANGED SERVERS
Or a survival guide for e-businesses facing bans or legal disputes with a platformFor nearly two years, we watched our entire platform become invisible. Not because of bad content, policy violations, or lack of effort... but because of a silent algorithmic shadowban. We had no warnings, no appeals, and no answers. Worse: under YouTube’s terms of service, any legal dispute must be handled in a U.S. court (even if you're based in France and pay taxes there). This is how global platforms sidestep national laws... and why creators are left legally unprotected in their own countries.
¯_
PART ONE – WHEN A SHADOWBAN SHUTS DOWN YOUR BUSINESS
¯_
Two years ago, we left Dedibox, a French hosting company we judged incapable of meeting even our most basic expectations in terms of customer service. In a field as critical as data hosting, the professionalism of the technical support team cannot be optional... it must be the company's showcase, the reassuring human face you turn to when something goes wrong. This pursuit of reliability led us to GoDaddy, based in Arizona, whose configuration tools, WordPress diagnostics, interface design, and especially their technically skilled support team had earned our trust... far beyond the empty promises of typical commercial discourse. But everything collapsed suddenly, swept away by a digital catastrophe we didn’t see coming. A brutal, invisible blow: the shadowban. House Station Live was ghosted (to use the terminology of our virtual assistant, GPT). Disappeared from search results, ignored by YouTube recommendations, erased from the Android Play Store. For eighteen months, despite heavy investments and extensive testing in formats, lengths, languages, thumbnails, titles, even hosts, nothing changed. Every video was locked between 20 and 30 views. We were trapped in that narrow range, with no human contact, no way to file a complaint, and no hope of improvement.Facing this algorithmic wall, we made the only logical decision: open an investigation and build a legal case. Not to prove a “perfect crime” but to demonstrate that even the most opaque algorithms leave traces. During this inquiry, we came across a particularly disturbing fact: according to YouTube’s terms of use, any dispute must be brought before a U.S. judge. It doesn’t matter that you are based in France, targeting a French audience, or that French law requires foreign companies to have a legal presence in the country... Google circumvents this by distinguishing between headquarters, local offices, and legal jurisdiction. The result is clear: you are automatically excluded from the protection of your own legal system. This system is so airtight that very few individuals or businesses attempt legal action against Google. The GAFAM is protected by a lethal triad: algorithmic opacity, extraterritorial legal shielding, and the complicity of a U.S. government that views tech giants as national pride (even strategic weapons in the global information war). While France leaves its citizens exposed and helpless against digital abuse, the United States has conquered the Internet on a global scale by imposing its law as if it were sovereign territory.
To illustrate just how absurd and dangerous this has become, let’s take the example of music licensing. Every month, House Station Live pays royalties to SACEM, the French government’s music rights agency. In return, we are legally authorized to broadcast commercial works, provided we submit monthly playlists so that royalties can be fairly distributed to artists. In theory, everything is legal and in order. But the United States has its own system: the DMCA. And if you stream House Station Live through any platform based in the U.S. (like GoDaddy, YouTube, etc.), you are automatically subject to U.S. law, even if your legal entity is based in France. France, in turn, declares itself incompetent in such cases because the “crime scene” is legally located on American soil, where the servers are hosted. So the SACEM fee we pay offers zero protection, neither domestically nor abroad... where we’re treated like pirates. Imagine buying a product from a foreign website: you pay the foreign VAT, a currency conversion fee, and then the French customs tax. Three layers of taxation. A 30 € item ends up costing you 150 €. That’s digital over-taxation. And the same applies to our royalties.
Worse still, the U.S. considers you to be operating on their soil the moment your server is physically located there... regardless of where you are based, where your company is registered, or what contracts you’ve signed with your local rights agencies. Even if your SACEM contract is supposedly international, it offers you no protection in this skewed legal context. The U.S. has simply annexed the Internet, claimed it as their jurisdiction, and imposed their extraterritorial laws on the rest of the world (without any international mandate or global consent).
¯#Shadowban #Censorship #YouTube #DMCA #DigitalRights #FrenchTech #AlgorithmBias #GoogleAbuse #PlatformAbuse #Justice
-
Heute mit Special Guest!
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream über Fotografie – u.a. über IBIS vs. Erdrotation, Canon-Zahlen, Pixii Max, KI-Gesetze in Südkorea, AOP-Umfrage, Drucken 2026
Gerne Boost 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-GC5ZbLW5s#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #canon #ibis #ki #pixii #klostergeister #aop
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream über Fotografie: Nikon ZR mit 6h Recording, Sally Mann wird digital, Virtual Photography Awards, Viltrox-Klage, Kodak vertreibt selbst, Leica-Verkauf?
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MjJ-MgPkuUTeilen erlaubt 🚀
#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #nikon #analogfotografie #leica #viltrox #virtualphotography
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream über Fotografie: Nikon ZR mit 6h Recording, Sally Mann wird digital, Virtual Photography Awards, Viltrox-Klage, Kodak vertreibt selbst, Leica-Verkauf?
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MjJ-MgPkuUTeilen erlaubt 🚀
#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #nikon #analogfotografie #leica #viltrox #virtualphotography
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über Photoshop in ChatGPT, Leica-Update, Ricoh GR IV, die Vanity-Fair-Porträts, Spotmeter-Projekt, Kagi SlopStop
Gerne weitersagen 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIS4cHquG8#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #photoshop #leica #ricoh #vanityfair #spotmeter #kagi
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über Photoshop in ChatGPT, Leica-Update, Ricoh GR IV, die Vanity-Fair-Porträts, Spotmeter-Projekt, Kagi SlopStop
Gerne weitersagen 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIS4cHquG8#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #photoshop #leica #ricoh #vanityfair #spotmeter #kagi
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über Photoshop in ChatGPT, Leica-Update, Ricoh GR IV, die Vanity-Fair-Porträts, Spotmeter-Projekt, Kagi SlopStop
Gerne weitersagen 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnIS4cHquG8#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #photoshop #leica #ricoh #vanityfair #spotmeter #kagi
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über über PNG mit HDR, CFexpress vs. SD, das neue Meike 85/1.8, smarte Teleskope, Großformat-Workshops, Colani & die Canon T90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqp9rqer1R8
#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #cfexpress #meike8518 #png #smartscope #großformat #canonT90
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über über PNG mit HDR, CFexpress vs. SD, das neue Meike 85/1.8, smarte Teleskope, Großformat-Workshops, Colani & die Canon T90
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hqp9rqer1R8
#hslive #fotografie #podcast #livestream #cfexpress #meike8518 #png #smartscope #großformat #canonT90
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über neuen Lomo-Film, Affinity-Teaser, Sony Makro, BRAW bei Sony, Gandolfi-Kameras und was Bond mit Broccoli zu tun hat
Gerne Boost 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBenPqVmWo4#hslive #fotografie #analog #sony #affinity #nikon #rawformat #macro
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über neuen Lomo-Film, Affinity-Teaser, Sony Makro, BRAW bei Sony, Gandolfi-Kameras und was Bond mit Broccoli zu tun hat
Gerne Boost 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBenPqVmWo4#hslive #fotografie #analog #sony #affinity #nikon #rawformat #macro
-
🎧 Ab 18 Uhr reden @chrismarquardt und @nSonic im Livestream wieder über Fotografie, z.B. über neuen Lomo-Film, Affinity-Teaser, Sony Makro, BRAW bei Sony, Gandolfi-Kameras und was Bond mit Broccoli zu tun hat
Gerne Boost 🚀
https://twitch.tv/chrismarquardthimself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBenPqVmWo4#hslive #fotografie #analog #sony #affinity #nikon #rawformat #macro