81–90 of 266 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, not listening to the opinions of morons is crucial. 16% of the population has an IQ less than 85. Listening to them is a way to ruin your life.
The implication of that statistic is that 4 in every 25 people you meet are statistically not worth listening to. I can assure you the number of people you should ignore is way higher than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I 100% support youtube-dl and I want YouTube to stop interfering with it Well if you've bought any client-server app over the last 23 years its a bit too late for computing freedom. They are locking down IO with trusted computing, there's been a 23+ year initiative to move to encrypted computing to take input/output control away from the user, this required the co-operation of hardware manufacturers. Windows 10 and…
So, if I don’t use Windows then I’m fine?
How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
If we ever get there, I suspect it'll be through a combo between a decentralized registry core and federated and commercial gateway system (similar to VPN or usenet providers). The biggest challenges are related to identity, moderation and abuse, while appealing to a mainstream audience.
"It's not the format, it's the business model."
Even if they win, what would it remove? A website, which essentially just hosts some links to github. Within German jurisdiction only. So it would probably be up and running from a different provider within a day or two. And the repository itself would remain completely untouched anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The real issue is company ownership is anti-democratic so we can't stop EA or activision from making games in fraudulent ways, so we'd need to have some ownership share over the company because it effects us politically. There's no other way then private power being co-owned with the rest of society, aka there are certain things private individuals and companies can't engage in. That is the only explanation because c…
> The real issue is company ownership is anti-democratic Wrong. Company ownership is perfectly democratic. > need to have some ownership share over the company because it effects us politically This happens now with share ownership. > AKA bobby kotick can say to his employee's "make games with drm" and the employee's must obey or be fired, that is the fundamnetal problem with capitalism in a nutshell. Every single ti…
No it doesn't, you can not own shares in a company and still have it affect you. You can also own shares and have no voting rights, either.
Share ownership is, as it stands, undemocratic in the sense that there is no democratic decision making by all of those who are affected by a company. And a model where wealth decides how many votes you get isn't very democratic, either.
The best way to ensure there is no "copyright infringement" would be to shut off Youtube altogether and make sure nobody can see a "music video" without paying a subscription. Other than that, they should assume their content is accessible from any device which was exactly their original intention. The duplicitous attitude of music executives is that they even pay radios to play some songs in loops to turn public att…
How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
I'm not sure what it says about me that my first thought upon reading this: > an independent club owner in San Francisco tried to run a promotional video given to him for a band he’d booked, only to find Instagram’s filer blocked it. He was able to reinstate the video, 17 months after the band had come and gone. Was "I bet that was jwz" . Indeed, a brief web search turned up this (via a recent-ish Cory Doctorow post…
How can we create a video platform with high-quality discovery, personalization, subscriptions, comments, voting, and more — while also making it technically incapable of being evil and closed? Are there technologies that we can use to allow network effects to accumulate to software that isn't controlled by a single, rent-extracting, and private entity?
Google isn't really rent seeking with Youtube. It pays for distribution (even for demonetized content), site development, building recommendation systems, content moderation, accessibility though subtitles, etc. That doesn't mean they don't make money on it, that their decisions are always just, or what they promote is good for society, just that they add a lot of value beyond someone hosting a webm file on s3.