3 ms·
Two things: look up machine learning stuff on YouTube and you'll find millions probably of sciency videos. Like it or not, its definitely a place where scientif
by version_five 5y ago
Two things: look up machine learning stuff on YouTube and you'll find millions probably of sciency videos. Like it or not, its definitely a place where scientific content is present.
Secondly, the article talks about things like testimony before Congress. It's not just that people use YouTube to upload conference presentations (they do) but it's also a general platform for excerpts from tv, other proceedings, etc. So I think it doesnt lead anywhere to just dismiss is as "why are they posting on YouTube anyway"
- geofft 5y agoThat just makes it worse, doesn't it? Why have we let a private corporation that's stuffing ads on everything and has a bizarre view of fair use become the location of record for all video in our society? We have an entire agency - the US Government Publishing Office - whose job is to maintain the Congressional Record and handle all sorts of other printing and preservation requirements for the government. Why isn't congressional testimony there? Like, yes, it's bad for YouTube to delete congressional testimony, but isn't it worse to entrust YouTube with it in the first place?
- version_five 5y agoI agree with you, although I think the most pragmatic way to deal with it is to acknowledge when platforms have a de facto monopoly, and hold them to a standard when they do
- selimthegrim 5y agoYou may have heard of a little thing called C-SPAN...
- Zababa 5y agoAren't testimonies before Congress posted on a plateform controlled by the US government, so the public can get their information without depending on Youtube? I'm not american so I'm not familiar with how everything works.