They had so many great innovations over the years, the problem is they kill them off because they somehow can’t figure out how to monetize stuff that people want. It’s like if they can’t get the money from a third party, they’re out of ideas. I would have paid a monthly fee for Google Reader (not much, mind you, but I bet $1/month would have been enough to keep it running). I am now paying for Kagi because I prefer to be the customer and not the product.
…at least, not until after the vasectomy.
Meditation with help from the “Waking Up” app changed my life. I tried some other apps before and they’re mostly just about stress relief which doesn’t help you grow. This is different.
Yes but Facebook / Instagram / Twitter also do this and it has caused huge societal problems in the US, arguably much worse than TikTok.
List of government mass surveillance projects
Human rights violations by the CIA
The CLOUD Act
This started long before the 2016 election and is deeply ingrained into the way the United States government operates. I’m definitely not saying China is innocent, but a lot of the US government’s fears are rooted in projection. “We do it, so we must assume they do it too”.
The US would break them (and has always broken them) even if China wasn’t around.
Fisker found out Brownless got the car from an outside source
That typo is hilarious
Yeah well, it’s not like it’s beneath the US government to do the same thing. Remember Cambridge analytica, or the Snowden leaks? My point being, as far as I’m concerned as a citizen, banning TikTok just transfers power to a more concentrated group of actors. That makes the problem worse.
Watching from Europe I have no idea what the problem is. The US spies on our data, the CCP spies on our data. I can see why the US government might worry that they can’t access the data (except TikTok runs its servers on Oracle databases in the US just to satisfy them). But I don’t understand why the citizens of the US would support tightening the monopoly to just Facebook and Google.
Good bye.
I crave meat like a vampire.
There’s also a terrifying short story by Stephen King on the subject.
So call the shareholders and ask them to pay back the dividends that they’ve received over the years, to fund the YouTube infrastructure? That begs the question, what do we do when that money runs out?
That’s conjecture, and so is my view, but I disagree. They’ve even developed specialized hardware just to deal with all the transcoding they have to do, specialized for YouTube. There’s a lot of effort that goes into maintaining things that are unique to this particular service. But in the end, what matters is if they could make more money by spending their resources elsewhere.
Of course not, Google is a huge company that could probably just live off of patents for the next 100 years. But they’re not going to keep on running a service that just costs them money. Google is in fact notorious for killing off products.
That’s fine. It just reads to me sometimes as if people in the comment sections are angry at YouTube for trying to uphold a stream of revenue, when it’s the only thing that makes the platform possible. Personally I think YouTube has been a huge boon, I’ve learned so much from people who post on the platform and I don’t want to see it go away (which is not to say that it doesn’t have huge issues). So I’m fine with paying in some manner, at least until a better alternative comes up. If you don’t think it’s worth it, great for you, go and do whatever you think brings value to your life. But I don’t understand the vitriol or sense of entitlement to getting a costly service free of charge.
What is your suggestion for financing the YouTube infrastructure and development?
And I don’t see why Arch is relevant to the discussion. My point is that software being non-proprietary is not a guarantee for preventing fuckery like Microsoft’s. Profit-maximizing companies will maximize their profits, proprietary software or not. Canonical, which sells a non-proprietary Linux distribution, is an example of this.
This smells like an SEO article and the link is here to boost it in the Google results. There’s literally no information in there that isn’t just common sense.