ucaetano

56 ms·

511.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> You're giving them content they can monetize Well, exactly, content they can monetize .
512.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Yes, for free. You can create an account and upload as many videos as you want without paying absolutely anything. Even more, without handing over any personal information. But hey, feel free to upload your videos elsewhere.
513.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Wait, a company wants to make money on its free service? Shocking.
514.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> now is abusing that position Offering to host your videos for free and display ads along them hardly seems like "abusing that position"...
515.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> some simple common sense controls on what levels of certainty are required to take down a video This is solved already, but there will always be false positives. What isn't solved, and likely never will be, is copyright. But it se
516.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Because it ties in two barriers to entry that have rarely existed together before: minimum efficiency scale and network effects. Facebook only has network effects, there isn't anything particularly efficient or advanced about what it d
517.
by ucaetano 8y ago
This isn't a competition problem: Any competitor that gets big enough to challenge YT will attract the same scrutiny from content rights owners. and will face the same copyright issues that YT does. The problem isn't in the conten
518.
by ucaetano 8y ago
We need to figure out if he was acting alone or with others at Tesla and if he was working with any outside organizations. As you know, there are a long list of organizations that want Tesla to die. These include Wall Street short-seller
519.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Any competitor that gets big enough to challenge YT will attract the same scrutiny from content rights owners. and will face the same copyright issues that YT does. The problem isn't in the content hosting industry, it isn't even
520.
by ucaetano 8y ago
No, the SEC would have to explicitly issue a ruling. This would be equivalent to equating the opinion of a single Supreme Court Justice to a ruling of the Supreme Court on a subject.
521.
by ucaetano 8y ago
The Economist isn't a conservative news source by almost any possible metric. They are actually very socially liberal (and generally economically centrist). A lot of their positions (taxation, free education, government spending in inf
522.
by ucaetano 8y ago
I'm not proclaiming anything in particular about your content, but you don't seem to be able to fund anyone willing to pay for it.
523.
by ucaetano 8y ago
No hard numbers, but here are some estimates: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/03/google-reader-data-... While CNN and Engadget had 24M and 7M RSS subscribers (which include Google Reader), the numbers drop q
524.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> Not very many people are going to pay for something when you can get the exact same thing for free somewhere else, and in a global marketplace it makes sense for someone to plagiarize paid content and reproduce it for ad-revenue alone.
525.
by ucaetano 8y ago
None of that solves for the fact that your readers aren't willing to pay anything to read your content. You can remove Google and Facebook, replace by anyone else, or eliminate it entirely. It still won't solve the problem: nobody
526.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Are you replying to me? That's exactly what I'm saying. Google Reader was an irrelevant product to the general public, only adopted by a very small niche of users, just as Hacker News is largely irrelevant and unknown to the gener
527.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding people willing to pay to subscribe to your content. Take a look at the finances of content providers over the past 20 years. How many publishers, newspapers, studios, etc. shut down? Wh
528.
by ucaetano 8y ago
None of that equals "having control of the web". > What if web becomes a walled garden ? That, again, doesn't even make sense. A walled garden isn't "you need to pay to access my content". A walled garden is
529.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> But there is virtually no VC investment in the content. Nothing Have you stopped to consider that content is a nearly-worthless commodity for which very few people are willing to pay actual cash for?
530.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Yeah, ask anyone outside of hacker news if they ever heard of Google Reader. Or RSS. Nobody.
531.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> once Google has control of the web How does this even make sense? This is like saying "Once flying squirrels take control of the government...". Sure, a government controlled by flying squirrels is something scary. But that d
532.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Don't be evil is on the Code of Conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
533.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> unfortunately due to high housing costs And housing costs are high because of asinine zoning laws, as OP mentioned.
534.
by ucaetano 8y ago
ohazi never talked about zoning laws being defined at the State level. Just that zoning laws in CA are asinine.
535.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> The result? My adblocker is happily giving them the middle finger and I can’t wait for adtech to die in a fire. You do realize that with adtech dying those sites and services will go out of business, right? Or you didn't think tha
536.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> This would work if there was actually a choice And since when should you have a "choice of products"? Companies offer products, if you like them, use them. I don't have a choice of free cars.
537.
by ucaetano 8y ago
Only visit websites you trust. Remember, you're the one accessing. The choice is yours.
538.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> The tracking I detest, and I don't think the benefits are worth the cost to users. Then don't use those services. The choice is yours. Let other users assess the value for themselves.
539.
by ucaetano 8y ago
People management is very, very different than leadership. Take Steve Jobs, for example. A complete asshole if not a full-blown sociopath, but an impressive leader capable of creating a cult-like following. Leadership is about inspiring and
540.
by ucaetano 8y ago
> I'm all for it because the content the current advertising model enables is so bad we're not willing to pay for it You're saying that you don't like the content, so you'd be ok with it going away. What about p

More ›