Technology

Yep. Most of my favorite creators are on Nebula now.

The ones that aren't get watched on SmartTube or in Brave Browser.

Sue for defamation that Youtube are alleging he is promoting criminal activity of piracy.

Like google, I'm sure Jeff has a near unlimited supply of money to pay lawyers.

Yeah, people who thought Google wasn't openly strangling the free (as in libre) stuff because they weren't that evil - these people just have bad memory. In year 2012 it clearly felt that corps, Google and Facebook and MS and Apple and everyone, are on the move to capture it all without a way out. They kinda made the illusion of being softer later.

So the question is - how do we even advertise legal but unpleasant for them things, avoiding their censorship.

The devices are sold together with the operating system (often unchangeable) and packaged applications and means of installing software, right from the markets.

I mean, I have a solution. It's counterintuitive and seems unconnected, and too direct, but I guarantee you it'll work.

Forbidding companies to do moderation or refuse to accept content without technical problems, or banned content (CP and such), and similar good justifications. As in - if your service is up, and there's user content served from it, it shouldn't be removed without legal substantiation. It doesn't matter it's free, that doesn't mean you can do all you like. You are not a media outlet, you are a platform for many media, that's how you work in fact, so yes, your actions do constitute censorship if you do moderation. If you can't afford to keep it free with such rules, then start charging money for hosting, as it normally should have been.

And, of course, this should include public offering status, the prices should be the same for all users.

I mean, if we had this from the beginning, we'd probably still have the Web like in year 2003.

Are you suggesting that a guide on how to leave youtube should be elsewhere?

Thats like requiring to pass an exam to get access to the textbook.

I think so. A relatively small subset of the video upload firehose at YouTube who produce rewatchable content is going to require a lot less resources to provide than doing a free-for-all upload-anything video. This might actually be feasible.

YouTube took down the video because of its own policies, not because of copyright law. So we should be blaming YouTube.

I think it's easy to see exactly why if you consider how YouTube treats small content creators. If I post a video and companies claim copyright on it, the video gets demonetized and I might lose my account. I can respond and contest the claim and maybe I can win but I still lost money in the meantime, and perhaps more significantly, the companies that made their copyright claims will never face a consequence for attempting to burn my channel. In other words, if I get things wrong a few times I'll lose my channel and my income source, but if they get things wrong a million times, they face zero consequence.

And you might be inclined to blame the media companies. But again, this is YouTube doing what YouTube wants to do of its own volition, and not something that's required by law. If YouTube valued small-scale content creators and end users, it would create different policies.

I think it's both, a dumb system enforced in a somehow dumber way

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)

It was released on DVD and Blu-ray, if he purchased the disc and ripped it to his media, and hasn't shared those files with anyone, then it is legal, as an exception to copyright in the US, where Jeff and Google are both based.

Jeff has stated on multiple occasions that he purchases and rips his media, and does not use piracy.

You don't know the exact content of the files. He did not show those vidoeclips. I dont know if you can buy that or not. Sure it can be indication but in general you dont know as it varies between video to video if it is possible to buy.

Depends on the country