611–614 of 614 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that you don't. You can earn big money maintaining COBOL software on mainframes, no FAANG there. As long as it is a choice it will be really hard to do something about it.
The goal is quality tools, not money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I'd rather YouTube use legal means to remove offending apps from app stores, rather than technical means that would interfere with apps outside of ap…
> It's a distinction without a difference. Whether you use legal or technical means, blocking an offending app that violates the terms of streaming service is not "anti-competitive", as the parent comment accused. Neither Spotify nor YouTube is obliged to offer bandwidth. I think you're missing what the argument is. Youtube blocking something that violates Youtube TOS: completely fine One part of a massive conglomera…
And what does it matter how the company is organized? YouTube is in fact a direct subsidiary of Google, not just a sibling company under Alphabet, but so what? Would calling it "Google Video" make a difference?
The problem with the earlier hypothetical example (of Spotify acquiring Medium and blocking articles about apps that violate Spotify's ToS) was not cooperation between Spotify and Medium, but issues regarding free speech, insofar as that applies to a private platform.
The analogous situation with YouTube would be content on Google platforms discussing third-party YouTube apps... and in fact, there are plenty of videos on YouTube itself discussing youtube-dl or apps such as NewPipe.
> Youtube isn't using legal means, in general.
That's semantics. Call it technical vs. non-technical means, then, or whatever.
The problem with that line of ideological reasoning is that it implies YouTube should use technical means, such as locking down its API, rather than just booting offending apps off the company's own app stores. The end result would be worse for users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. One day ads will start being plexed with content over websockets and the DOM-level protections will be all we have. Firefox is really the only alternative here.
> Safari has only weak protections, basically url-level blocking equivalent to Pihole. Last I checked ublock origin does allow blocking elements by DOM selector. No, Safari content blockers can target selectors as well.
Still, I’m not a fan—I don’t trust apple to be a good judge of behavior here.