561–570 of 803 posts
Federated video platform PeerTube[0] can be a good alternative. [0] https://joinpeertube.org/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you want youtube (or any other platform) to not suck...pay for it. Like Netflix and Amazon Videos?
Like Netflix and Amazon Videos? People can't share their content on Netflix and Amazon without becoming a professional movie producer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised. This is effectively the same thing. Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which impacts their opin…
> Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub. Was this hypothesis ever actually even remotely tested or is it advertising agencies deciding what content is no bueno?
It is bad that youtube became only video hosting platform and everyone is putting videos there, even government institutions. That leads to many annoyances, where critical information is blocked by myriad of ads. This should be illegal.
Even the App Store stuff, I do think the 30% cut and app linking stuff is unfair, but it's small potatoes of tech issues to me right now compared to the private organization that has essentially complete control over sharing information through video on the internet using that position to block people from sharing benign alternatives to watching videos on their platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…
You have the right to free speech As long as you're not Dumb enough to actually try it
Cooking at home is considered harmful according to restaurant owners.
Yes, a great analogy. And actually most of the time the food we cook at home is better than what we can get in restaurants. Sadly. Cooking decent food at home takes time, it should have been a restaurant job, but the reality is what it is...
Why sadly? I need to eat more than I need to scroll internet or anything else. Preparing decent food is time well spent.
"Free" video hosts work for advertisers. Those are their customers. I can guarantee that if youtube got 70% of it's income from paid subscriptions, they would not give a fuck about 99% of this. If you want youtube (or any other platform) to not suck...pay for it. There is no world where you are not a paying customer and get treated like your opinion matters much.
One time I had cancelled my Netflix subscription because I didn't use it very much, and 3 months later I notice it's still active. I was able to easily contact support in my native language and get a refund.
If I had an issue with any Google product, I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to get it resolved. As a company, they're insanely sketchy. Their main support channel is a community forum where most answers come from people who are endorsed by Google but not "actually" Google employees, except they do get benefits for working for Google, except it's not actually "working" like in a job so Google isn't really responsible for what they say, it's volunteering with benefits, if you know what I mean.
For Youtube specifically what makes me not trust is that, like Spotify, they advertise that premium subscriptions allow you to "download" videos in a sense of the word that literally nobody in the entire Internet would agree with. First "save" isn't saving, now "download" isn't downloading. I'm not liking this trend, to be honest.
It's a common saying that if you aren't the customer, you are the product. But I've heard people say that sometimes even when you are the customer you're still the product. I'm not sure about how I feel about paying to become a shiny product.
I'd be more than happy to get the 10€/month I am not giving to YouTube and send it to Jeff if he completely moved out of it. I know that he is already on Floatplane, but we all know that Google is not working with the best interests of its users/creators in mind, so "criticism" of YouTube while making money there seems hypocritical.
But if you're following 30 channels, would you be happy to give out 300€/month? There's just not enough people willing to do that to make it sustainable for creators.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 t…
A reminder that it's not anonymity in the law enforcement sense because IP addresses are akin to a pseudonym and can be tracked down. Also, for other cases you can't expect to be anonymous unless you run script blockers. And block first party scripts for the most egregious offenders (for which their websites won't work anyway at that point I guess).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…
> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…
Theee things can be true:
1. YT and similar give people a platform for speech
2. So long as they make a good faith effort to identify and remove content that is illegal, the hosted speech is not theirs.
3. As platform owner they are also free to exercise speech by moderating topics for any or no reason