4 ms·
The difference is that I know that written articles can be changed with no notice. I did not know that youtube videos can be edited like this.
by cli 10y ago
The difference is that I know that written articles can be changed with no notice. I did not know that youtube videos can be edited like this.
- Chilinot 10y agoIt is also common practice for news pages and blogs to leave some form of indication that the content has been edited. Youtube did not do that in this case. I would not have had any issues with this if they had indicated that the content had been altered.
- randlet 10y agoWhy is video sacred? Of course YouTube has the ability to replace a video with another. Yes they probably should have put a notice about it but this isn't really different than editing an article.
- bigbugbag 10y agoarchive.org probably has all the previous versions of the text, it certainly does not have youtube videos. The ability to stealthily rewrite history is a major issue.
- Drakim 10y agoBecause that's "how it has been" for a long time. It is well known that if you want to change the content of a video, you gotta delete the old one and reupload it. The reason google doesn't allow you to change it in-place is problaby to avoid "selling" of popular youtube videos to be replaced/injected with ads.