411–420 of 428 posts
I could develop something myself but it would be way better if someone already put the effort into it. Also because I suck at UI and would probably wrote a CLI for it, which probably doesn't mesh with content creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've watched both Grey's and Haran's videos since their early years on YouTube, and I'd be curious to know what the story is behind the disappearance of their podcast. It seemed like an odd development to me in view of how engaged they both appeared to be with their audience. I know that Haran eventually posted a brief comment on Reddit acknowledging the hiatus, but it struck me as a strangely subdued way to announce…
I think especially for podcasters in recent years there have been some.... issues with community management. I would say in particular lots of these people started doing "community slacks/discords" and then they realized that being able to produce podcast episodes doesn't make you a good community manager. There's been specific drama with Relay and people around that extended universe as well, so lots of podcast host…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know if it's a bug or intentional, but I have absolutely had cases where the thing you're talking about (Subscriptions) either refuses to show me a new vid from a channel I'm subscribed to, or refuses to notify me when a new video is out, despite having asked to be notified.
I'm a big user of the Subscriptions tab (283 subs, probably more than half from creators that stopped posting), and I've had no issues with lost videos. Well, unless they got temporarily delisted due to an illegitimate copyright claim. (How do I know? Because most creators I follow will mention their last video.) Limited experience with the bell, since I only did that for one channel, which I'm also a Patreon for. (C…
I didn't mean to imply this was frequent behaviour, as it's not. My point is more that I can understand Youtube channels wanting to have more control over their distribution and ensuring people who want to watch their content are aware of it, because sometimes Youtube won't make them aware.
I have seen a case where a video from a channel I'm subscribed to did not appear in my Subscriptions feed, and only appeared when going directly to the channel. From reading the comments I wasn't the only person this happened to. Though I can't see whether this was a bug on Youtube's end, or one of its endless tweakings to "the algorithm".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is my view too. I'm hopeful that eventually some combination of technologies that already exist (peer-to-peer sharing, tor, blockchain, homomorphic encryption, maybe even wireless mesh networking) will evolve into a decentralised hosting and delivery system that everyone will use. I'm woefully uninformed to speculate about how feasible this might be though, so it remains just a hope for me.
Peertube is an alternative. You usually host your own instance (or if someone is generous, they can five you some space) and it is fully decentralized. It uses ActivityPub and works with p2p. Recently they introsuced livestreaming and cross-instance search. https://joinpeertube.org/
I think PeerTube or systems like it have a lot promise — particularly if more estblished channels on YouTube, and other media producers, were to start to promote them as alternative methods for accessing their output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think especially for podcasters in recent years there have been some.... issues with community management. I would say in particular lots of these people started doing "community slacks/discords" and then they realized that being able to produce podcast episodes doesn't make you a good community manager. There's been specific drama with Relay and people around that extended universe as well, so lots of podcast host…
I enjoyed HI but the community on Reddit always seemed super weird to me. People just competing over who’s most in on the joke and endless posts “Brady would love this...” I can imagine it being tiresome to try to “manage” that. Other podcast communities don’t seem to suffer from same kind of super fans as much.
I remember that both the hosts encouraged audience engagement in different ways — several episodes featured long discussions about topics on the Subreddit, and they solicited audience participation in various projects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC is publicly funded and for years was very strict about no advertising or product placement in their output (which has relaxed somewhat in recent years but it’s still there) so perhaps it’s because they don’t want the article to be seen as “newsvertising” (is there a special term for this?)
You're thinking of "native advertising" or "advertorial."
If newsvertising as a word takes off, you know who to blame :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What third avenue for protecting the public interest do you recommend between corporate control and government regulation? In a democracy, government is theoretically the mechanism by which public concerns are aired and addressed.
There's a difference between ensuring competition and effectively nationalizing a company's business practices because they happen to be successful. Declaring Google search results a "public space" is the latter and leads us down a pretty obvious path as to what's actually going to happen with that. If we wanted to encourage competition it would be an idea to start thinking more carefully about which bits of infrastr…
All of the above, though, require government action, as the current status amply demonstrates.
So back to my question, how do you do this without government? Or is that not what you were suggesting in your original comment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(This is a stub reply so I can collapse the various comments responding to this, so as not to distract too much from the rest of the thread. Sorry, non-JS users.)
> It's not wrong, of course, but it's been repeated for many years and won't lead to fresh conversation. Assumes there are no new readers on HN and that everyone reads almost everything and nothing needs repeating. Also it's very 'no noobies' as if anyone who is anyone should know the ropes already. And that is not the case. And I've mentioned this before a few times so I will repeat. Why don't you have in your profi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you believe someone's genitals determine how they should be treated socially, you are being transphobic. I personally think that is a stupid standard, but that is the standard that has been set for transphobia. I cannot tell if you're trolling or just intentionally ignoring all the related nuance. You must understand there are some circumstances when it is acceptable to acknowledge that a trans women has a bio m…
I'm not trolling, I'm pointing out the obvious - you are espousing mildly transphobic principles and you should reassess your framework until it makes sense. Someone with a prostate having prostate cancer and needing treatment has an obvious, involuntary, cause and the person is presumably voluntarily cooperative in being treated. Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans spo…
> What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body.
What are you going to say when this person declines sex with a trans women? Is that transphobia? Should they be forced to lie about why they're declining the sex? Is wanting to have sex with people with the same genitalia as you transphobic?
> Thinking that it is even possibly reasonable to exclude a woman from playing womans sport because you don't believe they are womanly enough, regardless of their beliefs, is blatant transphobia.
This is just projecting reasoning onto me that I've never espoused. I never made the claim it's because I "don't believe they are womanly enough". The reason is that certain people have a biological advantage that others do not. The name "women's sports" is somewhat unfortunate because the goal is not to separate women from men, but actually to separate the people with that advantage from those who without.
> And the long pseudo-science "not men but kinda men" justification is the sort of thing bigots tried to deploy against gays, religious minorities and women in the past.
Again, this is refuting a point I never made. Trans men are men with a bio woman body, and vice versa for trans women. That isn't pseudo-science, it's the literal dictionary definition of what a trans person is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter has just not removed stuff as well so I don't think that is actually a difference between them.
Twitter hosts their own servers rather than agreeing to another company's terms of service.
https://www.techradar.com/news/twitter-signs-up-aws-for-its-...