Watermark Discussion. - NIGGER MARK N SHIEEET.

[xX_rAcE_wAr_420_Xx]

I agree with most posters in this thread, but I think some people miss the point:

1. Most of the Internet thinks this place is the evil interwebz boogeyman
2. Some SPECIFIC people have made it borderline impossible for Null to monetize the site
3. A non-trivial amount of YouTube slop content is sourced from the site
4. We all use the site because Null keeps it afloat

The goal isn't to encourage normies to flood the site.
The goal isn't to prevent YouTubers from using niggermarked content on their videos.
The goal is to take advantage of the popularity of the content (3) to normalize the site's content among normies (1), creating enough scrutiny / pressure / whatever to allow the forum to accept direct payments, ideally through credit cards (2). This means that Null will keep the forum up for us to shitpost, and won't die penniless in a ditch like Lowtax (4).

Niggermarking is incredibly funny, and based. That said, based on the logic above, for a standardized practice Kiwimarking encourages YouTubers to use the content but downplay the site's reputation, which is less funny but cements the thousand year Kiwi dynasty.

 

[Tyrant_1]

I don't care if a Youtuber uses our shit.

(You) obviously don't care, but others ITT do.
I have no horse in this race, like (You), but I do like entertaining ideas.

If someone wants to do something, I'm not going to nag or stop them. I'll even help them cook (That's the point of the previous post you've missed).
Sorry if you're offended.

 

[Mike Patton Official]

I think it would be better to just have something very simple like the URL. No logo or nothing. Normies will see it and think it's just some normal website, maybe take a look at it, not knowing that it's literally Hitler central or whatever. Most won't even bother to join, and the ones who do will either act like retards (entertainment) or will be nice, contributing members.

(I did vote for the nogmark this morning, but I'm a changed man now)

 

[the rat]

It's not our place to give a toll. Who died and made (you) God? I don't care if a Youtuber uses our shit. The smart viewer will find his way back here eventually. There is a eco system in place currently that you are about to disrupt and it will hurt the farms long term. You don't have to see it, but it's there. If (you) are so mad, make your own YT channel and read off some kino from the farms. You guys are mad about the money, right? Post it yourselves then if you're so concerned.

Mate, youtubers are still going to make content about these lolcows with or without the footage posted here. Money is money nigga.

As for whether it should be nigger or not, I hate breadtubers and I'm really racist. Besides, on the idea that not having "nigger" there would help our image, people who come here would probably see a bunch of people say nigger at some point in a random thread with no punishment (it's how God would have wanted it) so I don't think it really matters if the watermark says nigger or not.

 

[SIMIΔN]

I think "Muhammad is a pedophile" would be a better watermark than "nigger."

Whilst it'll be funny getting groomer/rapist troons to team up with fundamentalist Muslims, I'd prefer it if we don't put Null at risk of beheading.

what d'you think, reddit nation?

Great, but maybe shorten it to
This isn't mine fag
I stole it

It's not a virtue to help the lying pieces of shit in the normie media lie about you,

This, how many children or monkeys abused and mutilated is worth saying the gamer word.
We are an island of sanity awash in a sea of deliberately manufactured craziness and anarchotyranny, we cannot afford selfsabotage.

Who died and made (you) God?

Must resist bringing up certain theology.

 

[Spooky Dogwood]

Watermarks are for gay niggers who want to ruin the quality of every archived image and video. It was Feaser-tier and it was on the KF. May as well force a watermark on all uploaded images while you're at it like shitty "meme generator" websites. Bunch of petty bitches on this website judging by the poll result.

 

[Jump]

I am once again reiterating that the point of a niggermark is not to make Turkey Tom's audience aware that he stole the content from kiwifarms, the point is to force him to stop stealing content from kiwifarms by making it unusable and verboten to advertisers.

I thought the whole point was to post the funny nigger word?

Unless your the one being clipped its not your content. Clippers don't own anything so they can't claim someone "stole" from them.
This sperging about downstream youtubers reusing kiwifarms clips is very Teddy Feaser like.

He got bullied off the internet for watermarking clips, and now there are people here unironically feasing the fuck out because someone they don't like is using "their" clips.

edit: @Spooky Dogwood ninja'ed me on the Feaser reference, im feezing hard about that now

 

[dick brain]

I agree with most posters in this thread, but I think some people miss the point:

1. Most of the Internet thinks this place is the evil interwebz boogeyman
2. Some SPECIFIC people have made it borderline impossible for Null to monetize the site
3. A non-trivial amount of YouTube slop content is sourced from the site
4. We all use the site because Null keeps it afloat

The goal isn't to encourage normies to flood the site.
The goal isn't to prevent YouTubers from using niggermarked content on their videos.
The goal is to take advantage of the popularity of the content (3) to normalize the site's content among normies (1), creating enough scrutiny / pressure / whatever to allow the forum to accept direct payments, ideally through credit cards (2). This means that Null will keep the forum up for us to shitpost, and won't die penniless in a ditch like Lowtax (4).

Niggermarking is incredibly funny, and based. That said, based on the logic above, for a standardized practice Kiwimarking encourages YouTubers to use the content but downplay the site's reputation, which is less funny but cements the thousand year Kiwi dynasty.

This will never ever ever ever ever work as long as saying nigger and faggot and tranny and kike is taboo, which is to say until pro-weimar kikes aren't in control of banks and payment processors and leveraging them to enforce their politics, which is to say lmfao. The ethos of this site is directly antithetical to the ethos of the establishment and no amount of "pressure" from twitter slacktivists is going to change that. The freedom that this site affords is not allowed to exist under the powers that be, no amount of "pressure" or good will or whatever you have in mind is going to change that. Null, ostensibly, knows this, which is, ostensibly, why he has been vertically integrating as much of the infrastructure as possible instead of banning words like nigger and faggot and tranny and kike -- and on a more serious note, serially refusing demands to censor the sins cataloged here from the people whose sins are cataloged here. There will never ever ever ever ever be any course of action that stops degenerates from trying to destroy this site because this site is a monument to their sins. And we have seen time and time again that degenerates have friends in high places.

You can say "it doesn't hurt to try," but any failed bid regardless of intention WILL encourage normies to flood the site, and WILL draw the ire of the brainwashed golem hordes who only don't oppose the site because they don't know about it. Maybe that's worth it. I don't know. I don't care. I'm just letting you know that it's not going to work.

Unless your the one being clipped its not your content. Clippers don't own anything so they can't claim someone "stole" from them.
This sperging about downstream youtubers reusing kiwifarms clips is very Teddy Feaser like.

I don't care who they "stole" it from, anybody providing whitewashed censored "content" to the zog machine for a trickle of shekels while saying shit like "her prostate" is a faggot and I have an innate desire to bully them in whatever way is convenient. If that's as easy as saying nigger then that's a pretty cool opportunity.

 

[Ted's Cabin]

Watermarks are for gay niggers who want to ruin the quality of every archived image and video. It was Feaser-tier and it was on the KF. May as well force a watermark on all uploaded images while you're at it like shitty "meme generator" websites. Bunch of petty bitches on this website judging by the poll result.

Yeah, this is for retards who don't understand that they're on an archive site and are sodomizing files that are eventually going to be the only copy left after twitch streams decay and the current social media site dies. If you want the last copy in existence to be watermarked in a way that's hard to reverse, sure, but I don't think people realize what they are asking for.

 

[SuzukaKobayashi]

It doesn't matter where they get their shit from, they never source it unless it's from a place they deem "morally right" or "official". The niggermark would change nothing except for one very funny thing: they have clips they can't use, and they will def mention them but be unable to use it. That alone would be a sign for everyone here that the fagtuber was using kiwifarms yet acting all morally righteous about "muh racism" how about you man the fuck up?

 

[DYLAN ‘DIELAWN’ VOLK]

Have some backbone & stop trying to make everything part of some niggercattle call line.

I hate summerfags, kids, and normies so much it's unreal.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Mate, youtubers are still going to make content about these lolcows with or without the footage posted here. Money is money nigga.

As for whether it should be nigger or not, I hate breadtubers and I'm really racist. Besides, on the idea that not having "nigger" there would help our image, people who come here would probably see a bunch of people say nigger at some point in a random thread with no punishment (it's how God would have wanted it) so I don't think it really matters if the watermark says nigger or not.

The importance of the archive supersedes the petty need for the watermark. It doesn't matter what the watermark says. You altered the original. You fucked it up. A Youtuber using a archive is a small price for having it in the first place in a raw unedited format

 

[the rat]

The importance of the archive supersedes the petty need for the watermark. It doesn't matter what the watermark says. You altered the original. You fucked it up. A Youtuber using a archive is a small price for having it in the first place in a raw unedited format

If you're that much of a purist then do the archival work yourself to ensure that it's "all good man" like holy shit.

First it's "this will damage the site's growth" and now it's "the archival isn't pure and ergo isn't good".

I disagree with obnoxious watermarks (I feel they should be transparent enough to see the footage clearly but not enough where you can't make out what the watermark is) but it's like, if you're going to be so anal about purity then the only real course of action is to do it yourself, seriously.

It's probably just me but I don't really care if an important video has a transparent image overlayed on top of it or whatever as long as the main content is still fully visible without needing extra effort put towards it. Having it be clean is a nice to have, having the content be clearly visible is a necessity and I don't think a transparent image is going to wreck that unless something really fucking stupid is used (so basically use a very transparent white logo).

For an example of what I mean. You can very clearly see the content of the video while also being able to see the watermark.

You see watermarks on a lot of shit on important stuff like the chris chan bodycam and stuff. Do you object to that? I'm curious on your stance.

 

[pascalian]

what d'you think, reddit nation?
View attachment 7415373

here's a proof of concept

 

[Machine made Horrors]

I stole this from Stonetoss' twitter. You can use it if you want a more subtle niggermark.





It says "nigger"

 

[the rat]

If you're that much of a purist then do the archival work yourself to ensure that it's "all good man" like holy shit.

First it's "this will damage the site's growth" and now it's "the archival isn't pure and ergo isn't good".

I disagree with obnoxious watermarks (I feel they should be transparent enough to see the footage clearly but not enough where you can't make out what the watermark is) but it's like, if you're going to be so anal about purity then the only real course of action is to do it yourself, seriously.

It's probably just me but I don't really care if an important video has a transparent image overlayed on top of it or whatever as long as the main content is still fully visible without needing extra effort put towards it. Having it be clean is a nice to have, having the content be clearly visible is a necessity and I don't think a transparent image is going to wreck that unless something really fucking stupid is used (so basically use a very transparent white logo).

For an example of what I mean. You can very clearly see the content of the video while also being able to see the watermark.
View attachment 7415870

You see watermarks on a lot of shit on important stuff like the chris chan bodycam and stuff. Do you object to that? I'm curious on your stance.

Actually I've thought of a way better way to phrase this: I appreciate that you are very principled when it comes to archival but I think it's a bit much for silly lolcow moments.

 

[GlupShitto]

This exactly.
Instead of putting nigger, why not just put the website URL? Instead of preventing people from using the footage at all, would it not be better to get the site name out there and expose the wholesome chungus 100 creators as users of the vile farms to the point that it becomes normalized and not so much of a scarlet letter?

Maybe I'm being naïve, but it seems like a better measure.

The last thing this site needs is a swarm of newfag zoomers shitting everything up.

 

[The Wokest]

The importance of the archive supersedes the petty need for the watermark. It doesn't matter what the watermark says. You altered the original. You fucked it up. A Youtuber using a archive is a small price for having it in the first place in a raw unedited format

If the one and only footage of a monumental event is plastered with niggermarks is funny as fuck, so funny that preservationfags can seethe.

I believe an issue in this thread is that context was not provided for what exactly sparked niggermarking

• https://kiwifarms.net/threads/community-feature-submissions.114933/post-21506539
• https://kiwifarms.net/threads/community-feature-submissions.114933/post-21511692

the gauntlet has been thrown:

 

[WelperHelper99]

If you're that much of a purist then do the archival work yourself to ensure that it's "all good man" like holy shit.

First it's "this will damage the site's growth" and now it's "the archival isn't pure and ergo isn't good".

I can believe both at the same time. Mind blowing.

I disagree with obnoxious watermarks (I feel they should be transparent enough to see the footage clearly but not enough where you can't make out what the watermark is) but it's like, if you're going to be so anal about purity then the only real course of action is to do it yourself, seriously.

I already do.

It's probably just me but I don't really care if an important video has a transparent image overlayed on top of it or whatever as long as the main content is still fully visible without needing extra effort put towards it. Having it be clean is a nice to have, having the content be clearly visible is a necessity and I don't think a transparent image is going to wreck that unless something really fucking stupid is used (so basically use a very transparent white logo).

For an example of what I mean. You can very clearly see the content of the video while also being able to see the watermark.
View attachment 7415870

You see watermarks on a lot of shit on important stuff like the chris chan bodycam and stuff. Do you object to that? I'm curious on your stance.

I hate when EWU does it. It fags up the footage. I hate when anyone does it frankly. It's less authentic. And you can miss details if it distorts the color or gets in the way. It's niggery.

 

[GR8 B8 M8 I R8 8/8]

This reminds me of how there are people who will get mega butthurt if they take a video game screenshot and someone else reposts it somewhere else.

As long as the video is visible, I don't care. But if you want to redirect people to the site, use the kiwi mark.
There are pros and cons to this. It could bring people to a place that challenges their beliefs and help people to break out if the echo chambers.
The downside is that you might bring annoying normies in.

If you don't want it used at all and to not redirect people to the site, use niggamark.