3 ms·
I'm not talking about content makers' survival. I'm talking about existing content being lost. Even assuming those people had everything backed up, it would be
by intertextuality 8y ago
I'm not talking about content makers' survival. I'm talking about existing content being lost. Even assuming those people had everything backed up, it would be scattered all over the place.
This Video Will Make You Angry was a good video. No idea why it specifically is being discussed here.
> For extremist or propagandist content, unfortunately both those things mean it will continue even without YouTube or a clone.
Yes, this has nothing to do with youtube. Again, you can propagate charged content via other mediums, especially on the internet.
- slededit 8y agoLike educational videos from the 50s, its neat to be able to go back and see them. But these subjects get continuously recovered. Sometimes just to spice it up, and sometimes the material does change. Its not the end of the world.
- ben_w 8y agoI was giving examples of the harm side of the equation. Up two levels, “YT radicalizes viewers”, your reply (by my reading) downplayed that harm. If your primary concern is searchability, that is a surprise: YouTube is the second largest search engine after google.com, and I didn’t perceive any suggestion that the latter would be harmed by the copyright proposal. Even if it was, even rubbish search engines like iTunes’ Podcasts doesn’t stop me getting vastly more content than I have time for even if I took early retirement and listened at double speed.