SMH It seems like you are disagreeing just to have something to type.
> How is youtube being the most popular video site
The reference is to the music industry monopolies. Read the post.
> The problem is that Google want YouTube to own everything to do with video, and don't want to take any responsibility for making that work at the scale they want to profit from.
> If it was very profitable and technically possible to build a similar system but better, we'd have that.
Not true. "better" is a matter of perspective. Better for copyright holders? Nope. Better for society? Yes. The winners are still winning (pun intended).
> And you get to decide that for all the people that enjoy those clips and want to host them?
That wasn't the implication. The issue is that there is no alternative that is widely accessible (and conversely as profitable). "There's no reason" meaning that there's no technical reason, only a socio-economic reason.
> There's no good reason not to have more humans involved in assessing and tidying up when "the algorithm" fucks it up.
> Other than hurting the bottom line probably not.
Right. But you just have to go off script there, because you didn't get the opening you wanted. This is why we can't have nice things. Even the intellectuals want to troll, rather than contribute (guilty as charged). I just hate to see mischaracterization of rational discussion.
> How is youtube being the most popular video site
The reference is to the music industry monopolies. Read the post.
> The problem is that Google want YouTube to own everything to do with video, and don't want to take any responsibility for making that work at the scale they want to profit from.
> If it was very profitable and technically possible to build a similar system but better, we'd have that.
Not true. "better" is a matter of perspective. Better for copyright holders? Nope. Better for society? Yes. The winners are still winning (pun intended).
> And you get to decide that for all the people that enjoy those clips and want to host them?
That wasn't the implication. The issue is that there is no alternative that is widely accessible (and conversely as profitable). "There's no reason" meaning that there's no technical reason, only a socio-economic reason.
> There's no good reason not to have more humans involved in assessing and tidying up when "the algorithm" fucks it up.
> Other than hurting the bottom line probably not.
Right. But you just have to go off script there, because you didn't get the opening you wanted. This is why we can't have nice things. Even the intellectuals want to troll, rather than contribute (guilty as charged). I just hate to see mischaracterization of rational discussion.