> i meant anonymous as in "a user can receive a link to a video and watch it without having to log in" as well as "there's a list of content on the homepage to watch" - the same way youtube works if you go via private browsing.
Oh yeah this is my fault, I understood your meaning but wanted to make a separate point about the average user and their very specific.
IMO the vast majority of open source projects will use that word because it is a legitimate benefit, but it's anathema to the average consumer. It just signals "this is for criminals", even if it shouldn't.
Agree it's clearly a valuable feature -- it's hard to even demonstrate the value these days. "no algorithms" or "no tracking" might work, but it's so hard to verbalize.
With regards to the F/OSS solutions like peertube and the difficulty of marketing all this stuff (filecoin with/without crypto)... There just aren't the right incentives or the right insane person hasn't come along yet.
> That's not out of reach for the likes of someone like Louis Rossman, who really ought be moving off youtube
Maybe this is a bit weird but IMO Louis has been incredibly effective in his fight for right to repair, and I would hate to sacrifice his reach for a more user-friendly platform. I agree with the idea of at least simulcasting. Maybe it's another difficulty problem.
I haven't kept up with the stuff he's doing with FUTO these days as closely, but you have to fight on the battleground you're given. Winning and moral purity are often at odds, and IMO this isn't a place where moral purity is paramount.
IMO one of the hidden lynchpins here is the default license that youtube broadcasts with. I think there's a really clear legal path to downloading a LOT of youtube if only more things were CC licensed on there (not the default YouTube license) and accessible without logging in (similar to the LinkedIn scraping case).