51–60 of 73 posts
A company like Google should not be allowed to run a company like YouTube. They should be separate entities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You start by not banning people for nothing.
Except for that you risk breaking laws in several jurisdictions if you don't. And you can't fall back to "manual" enforcement think of the massive capital of human resources you'd have to invest in to make it keep up with the upload rate of YouTube.
Why isn't the market addressing this? Why doesn't someone start a video service in the US and for the US -- one that follows US law, and not Pakistan's or Iran's or India's or Germany's or anyone else's?
Oh, right, because then they can't sell ads in those places, or use them as tax shelters. Silly question, I guess.
By forcing compliance with oppressive regimes (and with pearl-clutching sponsors in less-oppressive ones), advertising will eventually end everything good about the Internet. If you work in that business, you're the problem. Consider a different career.
Disclaimer: Former Technical Solutions Engineer for GCP, aka Support for Customers. Also Former Engineer on YouTube Caching. To get it out of the way, I do not agree that it should've taken a journalist to get involved to have this situation solved. However, I'd like to prompt Hacker News with how would you handle receiving support requests from a product that has >2.7B users. Almost all of which are non-directly rev…
Do you have any other impossible conundrums I can clear up before coffee?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that we should kick all the poor people off of Youtube?
I'm saying if you provide a service you can't support, stop and make room for someone else to try. Of course they'd rather provide abusive service to hold on to user-share. That's a choice they're making and I'm saying that's a bad choice, socially speaking. Good business choice, I'm sure.
In other words, kick everybody off of Youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I asked for a very specific thing, not 'regulations that impact youtube'. The fact that you're telling me about your little search engine adventure without actually sharing a single link/specific regulation, says a lot.
The above was your first post...
> I asked for a very specific thing, not 'regulations that impact youtube'.
My apologies then for misunderstanding, that's how I interpreted your initial request. Can you explain the difference then?
I suggested a path for you to educate yourself, again pointing out that resources are available to you so you can learn things for yourself without demanding them from others.
Anyways, based on this latest comment and your other comments in this thread, you really come across as looking to pick a fight.. You're very confrontational.
Perhaps something to reflect on..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
If you're not willing to engage in discussion, why are you here?
I guess I expect a level of civility in my discussions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't provide services you can't support. Also playing devil's advocate here: Define "support". I'm sure Google will tell you that they support their billions of users just fine, relatively speaking, and that the percentage of people who fall through the cracks is an acceptable margin (to them, obviously not to the users themselves). To your point about "not providing the service", do you believe that the trade-off…
I don't think the vacuum left by Google exiting free video hosting would last long. There are lots of potential solutions to the problem, that aren't all very-expensive centralized services, but YouTube existing takes up all the oxygen in the room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm saying if you provide a service you can't support, stop and make room for someone else to try. Of course they'd rather provide abusive service to hold on to user-share. That's a choice they're making and I'm saying that's a bad choice, socially speaking. Good business choice, I'm sure.
> stop and make room for someone else to try. In other words, kick everybody off of Youtube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the vacuum left by Google exiting free video hosting would last long. There are lots of potential solutions to the problem, that aren't all very-expensive centralized services, but YouTube existing takes up all the oxygen in the room.
Wouldn't a new player in the space run into the same challenges though? I don't think this is a Google-specific problem (although they are particularly bad at it).
Their problems (not the problems of distributing video, but the problems of doing so as a centralized platform beholden to advertisers that also engages in automated promotion of videos) are a choice they made.
Disclaimer: Former Technical Solutions Engineer for GCP, aka Support for Customers. Also Former Engineer on YouTube Caching. To get it out of the way, I do not agree that it should've taken a journalist to get involved to have this situation solved. However, I'd like to prompt Hacker News with how would you handle receiving support requests from a product that has >2.7B users. Almost all of which are non-directly rev…