3 ms·

This is why I am increasingly of the hub and spoke method. You create content and host it on your own, but then reupload it to various sites that fill a need (y

This is why I am increasingly of the hub and spoke method. You create content and host it on your own, but then reupload it to various sites that fill a need (youtube/vimeo/dailymotion for video, etc). Then not only is the content when removed from one (say youtube) still there in another place/form, but it can just be reuploaded. Own your own content, but if you seek to spread a message you might want to use closed proprietary ecosystems as long as you aren't dependent on them. For example, I was recently updating linkedin, and went to add Bruce Schneier, but he had a post that said he never checks or uses it and only links to his website from there. He still has a presence there though, and that really hit me how much these little walled gardens we let take over so much of our compute ecosystem are starting to look like prison, even for your standard copyleft hating SV hipster. Of course Stallman would say don't even use them, and he makes some good points, but the problem we have now is even if you have a good message you can't reach the masses without going through some priestly gatekeeper of the government-corporate media power. So you have to use the system to beat the system.

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Well yeah, think of it like backups. You wouldn't keep just a single copy of an important document, would you? And certainly not on a cloud service with randomly-enforced ToS, right? Upload to as many sites as possible, link between them. Keep offline copies if you can.
loup-vaillant 9y ago
> So you have to use the system to beat the system. Which by the way is what RMS did back when the GNU system didn't exist: use proprietary UNIX to develop GNU, replace the system piecemeal.
- Digital-Citizen 9y ago
  The two cases (YouTube and using nonfree OSes) are not comparable as the grandparent poster and this suggest. In Stallman's case there were no free software OSes. One could not use a computer in freedom. Therefore he used a nonfree OS to write free software until he could run a free software OS and thus had no more need for nonfree OSes. For years now he (and the FSF) don't run nonfree systems. They even endorse computers (and other computer hardware) that can be run completely in freedom (see https://www.fsf.org/ryf https://www.fsf.org/ryf for details). We already have file hosting options that don't use DRM, nonfree JS (or indeed any JS), and avoid the other problems of YouTube. There's no need for coming up with something new as we already have viable other means of sharing files. We don't need YouTube, they need us. By buying into their limitations and restrictions uploaders endorse YouTube (which is undesirable and certainly not very thoughtful) and help foist YouTube's choices on others (which is unethical).
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    Still, the issue remains: if you have a message to spread, how would you go about spreading it? The brute facts are, not putting copies of the message in those evil centralised social networks means the message will be invisible to many people, in some cases the majority of the target audience. I'm all for getting rid of YouTube, but I'm not sure how we should do it.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

Well yeah, think of it like backups. You wouldn't keep just a single copy of an important document, would you? And certainly not on a cloud service with randomly-enforced ToS, right? Upload to as many sites as possible, link between them. Keep offline copies if you can.

loup-vaillant 9y ago

> So you have to use the system to beat the system. Which by the way is what RMS did back when the GNU system didn't exist: use proprietary UNIX to develop GNU, replace the system piecemeal.

Digital-Citizen 9y ago
The two cases (YouTube and using nonfree OSes) are not comparable as the grandparent poster and this suggest. In Stallman's case there were no free software OSes. One could not use a computer in freedom. Therefore he used a nonfree OS to write free software until he could run a free software OS and thus had no more need for nonfree OSes. For years now he (and the FSF) don't run nonfree systems. They even endorse computers (and other computer hardware) that can be run completely in freedom (see https://www.fsf.org/ryf https://www.fsf.org/ryf for details). We already have file hosting options that don't use DRM, nonfree JS (or indeed any JS), and avoid the other problems of YouTube. There's no need for coming up with something new as we already have viable other means of sharing files. We don't need YouTube, they need us. By buying into their limitations and restrictions uploaders endorse YouTube (which is undesirable and certainly not very thoughtful) and help foist YouTube's choices on others (which is unethical).
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  Still, the issue remains: if you have a message to spread, how would you go about spreading it? The brute facts are, not putting copies of the message in those evil centralised social networks means the message will be invisible to many people, in some cases the majority of the target audience. I'm all for getting rid of YouTube, but I'm not sure how we should do it.