I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating.
I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are.
The discovery problem is an illusion. If you build it, they will come.
There are decentralized/open/ethic friendly services alternative to big corporations services. In the case of Youtube there's PeerTube[1] for exemple (even if in that case there's a IP leak due to the p2p protocol if I remember correctly).
The sad thing here is that people decide to stay on the "big" services due to the network effect, and few people decide to boycott them just to follow principles.
That would probably work here until YouTube move on to "can't signpost content that's not allowed here".
I guess if YouTube blocks content by keywords we'll need to get creative with the thesaurus or ROT13.
Youtube is like that big commercial avenue in the city, where you can only see mainstream stuff. If you look for the bookstore that has hacking/engineering/pyscology books, you'll have to go elsewhere. But it has always been this way.
YouTube did not become popular with "mainstream stuff" if I wanted "mainstream stuff" I would still be a cable TV Subscriber
YouTube promoting only "mainstream stuff" like CBS, and CNN will kill YouTube
I have never once watched a mainstream TV show or Movie on the platform.
Given CNN'S dwindling ratings I sincerely doubt that. If anything youtube needs to rescue them.
Pornhub has good enough porn, can find something for most any niche.
Soon you’ll find though, if you’re really into this or that, individual studios that cater to your niche create videos with high production value that are all around better than what you dig up on pornhub.
There are marketplaces for small studios like clips4sale.com (nsfw).
Also aggregators for specific niches / topics, etc.
Maybe anti-YouTube people can look to porn for the way out?
But people are too lazy, and find the "just use the largest corporate platform" very convenient, especially if it's "free".
edit: ...which is a problems, since also your viewers only use that "one big" platform, and don't check elsewhere.
Disclaimer: I'm a Googler, so can't help you with estimating the cost. But a few years back the research community had some reasonable-sounding models. Plug in current hardware and you can get an idea.
Edit: note that peer to peer doesn't exactly solve the economies. Instead of advertisers, you're asking your viewers to provide the resources. Depending on the audience, this will or will not work.
Well, it is convenient I guess. Your content is being found, the interface is great, someone else is paying for servers, storage and bandwidth. All of that for a little control and advertisements...
And honestly, I want platforms to regulate content. They have millions of users, some of them are underage or even democratically unstable.
It's okay to put a little effort into finding knowledge now and then.
Exactly. Using Twitter or Facebook in place of Email/IRC/Usenet/WWW is wrong so many ways, but good luck telling that around without getting laughed at.
No, it is ruined by normal citizens who largely don't understand democracy and its value. As long as the dictator doesn't bear the label "dictator", people generally prefer dictators, and then at times they are surprised that dictators abuse their power.
The only way to fight it is to make sites like we used to, and make sure they have onions
Infosec people tend to be crafty (it's a job requirement imo) and quite a lot of the greybeards were part of building the infrastructure from the beginning, so no need to despair yet.
Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks.
YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such.
After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and tomorrow we'd probably see new services, possibly free and decentralised, popping up to replace them. But, while they monopolize their areas... they probably create negative value.
I think Facebook is already creating negative value.
Could you give some examples of this, please?
..FB also, photos of their grand hildren was the reason a lot of people got online.
Presumably you're not accusing "open web" activists of having ideals that favour inhibiting bandwidth, or hosting content on slow servers, so noting that proprietary ["closed"] services had those facets is irrelevant to your original comment.
If you felt that people wanting to use PNG, because GIF was closed and contrary to [the nebulous concept of] "open web ideals" has retarded progress on the web, then that might be an example? I'm struggling for an example, because I don't know of any examples, which is why I asked you because you spoke implying you know [many] examples!
Flash made online video work. Facebook & YouTube made contributing & sharing content accessible. IRC, host-your-own webpages, later attempts like RSS and such, which were more idealistically "www" were also not right for Aunt May. They were right for 1990 users, who were a self-selected bunch.. not alway representative of the majority.
Even jewels like Wikipedia (a brilliant achievement of the www idealism, imo) are relatively inaccessible (the editting part) to the average person. That works very well for Wikipedia specifically.
True. Even the audience for this will be devs which is right fit to make a decentralized community.