4 ms·
I’d argue that YouTube is a for-profit business. They have every right, within legal bounds, to do whatever makes economic sense to them. If you want an archiv
by k_sze 7y ago
I’d argue that YouTube is a for-profit business. They have every right, within legal bounds, to do whatever makes economic sense to them.
If you want an archive, go with archive.org. But even then, nothing is free. If somebody thinks a footage deserves to be archived and preserved, somebody needs to pay for the cost anyhow, e.g. via donations.
- utf985 7y agoAs a user I am not interested in YT's profits. However, what I am interested in is being able to access useful content. For all intents and purposes, YT has become the central place for people to upload such footage and of course the prospect of its removal is worrying to me. There are vast amounts of indispensable knowledge and information uploaded to YT that is far from being deemed as profitable to Google and as such are under risk of being permanently and irreversibly lost. Hence my confusion at the OP's description of the situation as "a good thing".
- knlinux 7y ago> As a user I am not interested in YT's profits. However, what I am interested in is being able to access useful content. Choose two: a) free* b) reliable c) universal * not counting ads.
- malka 7y agoYoutube being a monopoly on videos, is a de facto public service.
- aabbcc1241 7y agoThere are alternatives. We just need to use them if we care a little about it. e.g. your own web server (e.g. blog) / p2p network (e.g. zeronet / dtube) or even 'the modern social network' (e.g. facebook / twitter)