It's like banning Karate & Judo because it teaches violence. (When it actually improves personal security/safety)
I agree it is stupid to ban such items on such grounds but:
with "actually improves personal security/safety" I do not agree. If you are not training daily watching video about martial arts does nothing to improve your personal safety. Though there is guy having gym in China who is explaining it better than me and he has martial arts channel. But that is one guy vs tons of "self defence bullshit".
The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating. I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. The discovery problem is an illusion. If you build it, they will come.
giveth and taketh. Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and to…
>But, while they monopolize their areas... they probably create negative value.
I think Facebook is already creating negative value.
But it recommends me videos I remember seeing 5 years ago that just seems unnecessary
The point isn't to make you a more informed and well-rounded person, it's to keep you on YouTube so you see more ads. I bet "old favorites" that might make you feel nostalgic or have rewatch value (it's not a gamble, you already know it's good) makes a significant number of people stay longer.
It’s funny because YouTube preroll and midroll ads were what finally broke the camel’s back many years ago and made me install an adblocker
> If you want to significantly curate your content, you can't hide behind the legal protection of "uncurated user content". Is YouTube gaining some benefit from pretending to be an open platform? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Likewise, isn't copyright infringement is a criminal offense?
No, I'm suggesting changing laws. Youtube currently benefits massively from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_... as they are not directly liable for people uploading content they don't own. I'm suggesting that we only let people have that immunity if they aren't significantly curating their content. If they significantly curate their content, they should be able to curate copyright too.
YouTube very aggressively curates copyrighted content. This idea seems like the ideal way to stifle any competition to YouTube because the little guys cannot afford to implement a sophisticated machine learning copyright dragnet.
Ironically, they remove the videos that people watch, not the thousands of terabytes of videos with 3 clicks in the last 6 years.
It would be sad if they removed the videos with 3 click in the last 6 years, because those are the ones of your granddaughter, living thousands of km away, taking her first steps, or reading her first reading primer by herself. These are the things that help families stay in touch. Just because they don't attract mass clicks (and aren't intended to) does not detract from the value they have for the small number of vi…
first they came for the fake news, and I said nothing because I didn't care about the fake news' rights then they came for the altright, and I did say nothing because I didn't like the alt right content then they came for the historical channels for they talked about the rise of fascisms and I did say nothing because I was thinking of the easily influenced children then they came for the technical content, and there…
I can't help but cringe when people compare the machinations of a video entertainment company to literal genocide.
It's like banning Karate & Judo because it teaches violence. (When it actually improves personal security/safety)
I agree it is stupid to ban such items on such grounds but: with "actually improves personal security/safety" I do not agree. If you are not training daily watching video about martial arts does nothing to improve your personal safety. Though there is guy having gym in China who is explaining it better than me and he has martial arts channel. But that is one guy vs tons of "self defence bullshit".
I've not had YouTube around when I was learning karate, so I don't know if I'd be using it if I was learning karate now. However, I did use it to learn some dance moves, and although I was just sitting in my chair and watching it, it did help a lot with many "aha" moments and practiced them later. Sure, there is a lot of crap on there, but I can filter that myself. Things in karate that you could just learn by watching without much training are pressure points and how to get out of someone's hold. The other stuff needs training (especially conditioning), but a good video can give you directions for how to do it.
>The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. Could you give some examples of this, please?
YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. ..FB also, photos of their grand hildren was the reason a lot of people got online.
But YouTube having faster servers isn't an "open web" roadblock, Facebook's social graph isn't either -- neither of these shed any light on your previous comment for me.