test113

test113 , 4 months ago

They have, but they are not in charge. Apple's goal is to make money; everything else comes as an afterthought.

test113 , 4 months ago

In other words, media as a "service" makes more money than media as a one-point sale. Why should they sell you a one-point solution when the service model makes more money for the shareholders? I love the shareholder economy; it makes all our lives better and makes us focus on what really matters at the end of the day, which is, of course, profits for people who already have too much money. :) very cool

test113 , 5 months ago

Nope, it's not possible. The only way it wouldn't be treason is if all states agree, or if they start a revolution and are successful; every other attempt would simply be treason. Hence, one nation indivisible. I'm sure they know that; they just want to push as far as they can to make the political situation even more absurd in America. They want to widen the gap between the people. I don't know who exactly profits from this situation, but it's not the American people.

Here's a video that explains it quite well: [Legal Egal] (https://youtu.be/1dhvry6E0jA?si=H62qIoiHzaLdJHQF)

test113 , 5 months ago

YouTube cannot do that. YouTube's content legal system does not allow this.

That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.

Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don't quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.

Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don't like the default YouTube app.

So, I don't know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.

test113 , 5 months ago

Yeah, I know that, XD but why?

What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?

I think it's pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.

test113 , 5 months ago

I'm not so sure – YouTube is much larger than you might think. It's not the video platform you grew up with anymore. No one in this world can match the backlog and content density/diversity of YouTube, not even all streaming services combined. People complaining that YouTube is dying because a few YouTubers "retire" from their main gig or that it's not the same anymore don't understand how YouTube works. They might not comprehend that the time of their "bubble" has come to an end. When this happens, there are already five new bubbles/niches that are even bigger, and you might not have heard of them, but they are more successful than their "predecessor." The old bubble is still there to consume in the backlog. Someday in the future, AI will have a field day with the data accumulated via YouTube.

It is transforming, for sure, but I don't think it will destroy itself completely. In a sense, you can say it will destroy whatever view you had of YouTube as a platform because it is not what it once was.

To my knowledge, YouTube will hit the billion-user milestone this year (Netflix currently at ~250 million paid users). If we look at other data trends from streaming services, it suggests that YouTube will grow more over the coming years. I don't know how anyone can match YouTube as a whole. In certain niches, sure, but as a whole, it would be like fighting windmills. There's a reason no one tries to tackle YouTube as a platform and only goes for certain niches.

test113 , 5 months ago

The funny thing is, copyright doesn't even matter; at least half of the world's market couldn't care less about copyright, especially if it's from the "west." They certainly won't suddenly start respecting copyright law. They will use and develop AI without the restriction of copyright. All this talk about copyright and the law, and all the copyright suits against AI and tech firms, will be fruitless since we either forget copyright like we used to know it, or we get left behind in development because we need to respect the copyright of everything and make contracts with every big outlet, etc. Big tech knows that, so they walk this gray zone walk to still train AI on copyrighted material but somehow proclaim they are not copyright-dependent.

I'm not saying this is a good development, just that I think we need to reassess how we treat copyright on a fundamental level under the current development structure of AI.

We need to slow down the development of AI and hinder monopolization of the market. My guess is it's too late, but we can still hope that maybe this time it will be different.