Jeffool

This was going to be my recommendation, so I’m happy to see it.

Around the same time I also watched The Besieged Fortress. It’s about an ant colony attacking a termite mound. It’s staged, but handled as it might happen in real life, and narrated as if it’s some massive siege in medieval times. It’s fantastic.

Good luck getting to some place you’re happy being.

Funny, with a harsh ring of truth. I actually would be interested if they could dual boot with the game on a partition. That would make the transition to Linux easy too. But ultimately as it is, it’s “use Windows, or say to hell with playing games with your family”. I’m lucky that I still enjoy playing games with them, and them with me, so I gotta stick with that.

I love the idea of using Linux. But then I end up playing Warzone every weekend with my family. Can’t give that up. The best part is that they want kernel access, and still have cheating problems, apparently. (Must be higher than my level!) But it still inherently affects me, as they won’t port to Linux.

If someone posts a copyright violation on YouTube, YouTube can go free under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. (In the US.) YouTube just points a finger at the user and says “it’s their fault”, because the user owns (or claims to own) the content. YouTube is just hosting it.

I don’t know of any reason to think it’s not the same for written works. User posts them, Reddit hosts them, user still owns them. Like YouTube, the user gives the host a lot of license for that content, so that they can technically copy and transmit it. But ultimately the user owns it. I assume by the time Reddit made the AI deal they probably put in wording to include “selling a copy of the data” to active they want in the TOS.

Now, determining if the TOS holds up in court is of course trickier. And did they even make us click our permission away again after they added it, it just change something we already clicked? I don’t recall.

Like I said in another post:

Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.

At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don’t update within whatever Musk feels like is “too long” that day, he takes it back with no warning.

Seems like a good time to remind everyone just a few months ago he took two active usernames from their users without warning. Both @x and @music were in use and taken by Musk with no warning and no recompense.

At this rate I see it as completely possible that someone buys one, and the first time they don’t update within whatever Musk feels like is “too long” that day, he takes it back with no warning.

I just don’t see it happening. People have been suggesting they create “VideoHub”/“MediaHub” for years, as they’re the rare company established in free-access video and also able to compete on the basis of having a (presumably) profitable enough service to keep them afloat through any rough patch. Though I’ll certainly agree, it would be incredibly interesting.

You’re obviously right. But it’s funny to me; I find it easy to imagine a world where staying independent and hosting your own stuff was seen as cooler. Instead of YouTube and Google Buzz, we ran RSS clients akin to Outlook and Thunderbird. They torrent and seed media we’re subscribed to while we’re at work or class. It’s saved on a home server. We walk in and simply toss it up on our desktop or TV. (Or maybe a mobile client streams from your home server over the Internet or over your home Wi-Fi if you’re at home )

And if you visited the website instead of YouTube’s recommendations, The creator just adds a few RSS feeds on the backend to pull thumbnails from, of other creators’ sites they enjoy.

Crazy how easy it is to daydream though, when I’m not the one putting the work in.

I’m not arguing that Twitter is a good platform; I left it back in November for Mastodon and I’ve been happy with the switch. And if publishers want to run accounts labeled as “articles by Person A” and “articles on Topic B”, (to essentially make them user-friends feeds, instead of asking newbies to learn how to add RSS,) I think that’s great!

I’m just saying if a journalist (or any creator really,) is going to be active on social media, that it’s worth to work for the best interest as much as possible. Cultivating their circle on a neutral (between them and their publisher) platform is better for them than working exclusively on a platform owned by their publisher, locking in everything they do socially there. Be that Mastodon, IG, or whatever fits them and their style.

I absolutely get you; you’d think companies would want this. However employees probably shouldn’t want this. It’s generally probably better for them that they work for their own brand when possible, so I’m hesitant to suggest this become a thing.