I was astonished a foreign entity can stop the world watching something if they don't like it, it wasn't just geo blocked it was removed off YouTube.
Simple as that really. The government of Tuvalu making a similar request probably would have been politely ignored.
They may even require that all compute happen locally. And of course that all content and so on meet local regulations. Sort of like what we see with other telecommunication, be it T-mobile or other. Sure, they operate in many countries, but they have local staff and follow local rules.
In that case it wouldn't matter how many intermediary entities are there between HQ and local operations.
And from what I understand Youtube isn't profitable by itself.
I don’t have specific estimates I can link to, but I’ve seen statements like this fairly regularly: There are more questions around YouTube’s profitability, but he said the general view was that it was “modestly profitable but not dramatically so.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/technology/youtube-financ...
Of course when Google actually disclosed what percentage of their revenue came from YouTube it was well below the 20% suggested in that piece.
What is 'that wildly profitable estimate' then?
And Chinese entrepreneurs just kind of said, "SWEET!", then swept in with their own startups offering those services.
I'd imagine there are a lot of Indians, even here in the US, that would make a headlong rush back to India to start up web service companies if our companies said we won't service India any longer.
"Later today, I have the honor of meeting with His Excellency Prime Minister Modi to discuss how we are supporting small businesses and start-ups, investing in cybersecurity, providing education and skills training, applying AI in sectors like agriculture and healthcare, and other priorities."
A message from our CEO: https://archive.is/t3f7R / https://blog.google/inside-google/message-ceo/optimism-india...
S01E02: magnet:?xt=urn:btih:F55992F922B9A0E49C09E198835F0F06EE07635B&dn=India%20The%20Modi%20Question%20S01E02%201080p%20HDTV%20H264-DARKFLiX&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.coppersurfer.tk%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2780%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2730%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.opentrackr.org%3A1337&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fp4p.arenabg.com%3A1337%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.torrent.eu.org%3A451%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.tiny-vps.com%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.stealth.si%3A80%2Fannounce
Still seems pretty available here. =)
Everyone's anti-bittorrenting until some asshole with more power but even more insecurity comes along and refuses to be legitimately criticized or questioned.
https://peertube.tv/search?search=The+Modi+Question+&searchT...
I expect the high road from my country's communications sector on freedom of speech, and even though RT has always sucked, this behavior is distasteful.
Obviously the war is an abomination, but I'd prefer that in the interim, "platform" corporations stay the hell out of the 4D-chess.
What makes you think those in power won't abuse them as early and often as possible?
Stories like that always make me think that this is always some kind of a political play on the side of western media platforms, likely coming from ex-spooks they like to hire so much. Especially judging by how e.g. in Russia, YouTube has learned to play nice over time and generally doesn't act like it's "delete everywhere or leave as is" kind of choice.
The original rush to remove the content was fueled by alot of publicity around the documentary.
Everything beyond this is YouTube's own doing, really.
Speak for yourself. As an Indian, I don't want the government telling me what I can't watch.
> investigated by various courts including the Supreme Court of India
The same Supreme Court also ruled that the 2G Scam did not happen. Would you like to acquire an ownership interest in the Bandra-Whorli Sea Link?
> Will BBC make a documentary about the many crimes the British did in India?
They did even in the face of backlash from British Nationalists: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/historians-accuse-bbc-new...
> taint his image, and even destabilize India
So, Modi is India and India is Modi?
If every impactful documentary would be given away for free, there's no incentive for anyone to pay the company behind it to make more. Journalism is expensive and I don't think enough people would donate to a large corporation through Patreon.
I would love documentaries like these to be available without restriction, but when it comes to copyright and business model, it really does come close to Moanna or Eastenders.
And I wonder if that BBC link works in India. Or if this one does: https://btdig.com/search?q=modi+question&order=2
BCC iPlayer doesn't work in any country other than the UK, so there isn't any question of it working in India. BTDigg is blocked in India, along with most piracy oriented websites, since long before the BBC documentary thing I think.
They presumably treat everything on the service exactly the same, because it would cost them money to do otherwise, and also because they probably don't want to pay for the bandwidth for foreign users. I suspect you probably have to have a UK TV license to watch it, too, which means they're charging for it in the UK. It'd actually be surprising if they had a way to treat different content differently, as opposed to the whole service being all or nothing.
They probably also have foreign stuff on there that they've bought only the UK rights for.
Many of the best shows are co-produced with other broadcasters from countries, which means the BBC doesn't have the global rights for them. Also a decent proportion of BBC content is independently produced, which also means the BBC doesn't have the rights to that content. Lastly, the contracts for performing rights were often written before the concept of streaming, so you may have to go back to each credited performer and get the rights to distribute the show online. This has impacted DVD releases before, in one instance the BBC had to actually wait for someone to die before they could release a DVD box set, because one actor in just one episode refused to sign an updated agreement. So the list of content that's actually available is much smaller than you might think.
Maintaining a paid archive of "long tail" content has long been said to be the way forward. You can monetise that huge library of content from your past, right? Actually, it turns out that people don't actually watch that long tail. Outside the top, recent content, you'll get maybe a handful of people watching the archive each week. The cost of maintaining that archive online is non-zero and because the content is largely "cold", in terms of streaming, delivery of the archive costs you more than the popular content people are actually watching. And if you hadn't noticed, streaming services aren't renowned for being profitable in the first place.
Oh, and playback performance for cold assets is worse than fresh content. So watching an old episode of 'Only Fools and Horses' in Indonesia will have relatively poor streaming performance without putting in significant global investment. That investment being difficult to justify.
It's cheaper to syndicate the popular shows (old and new) to the other streaming services and see what gets watched.
Credentials: >20 years in broadcast/media technology, now working in a senior role at a major streaming service.
The BBC might correctly determine that, although it's a respected content producer, it doesn't have enough of that kind of power to make it work... except in the UK, where it already has a captive audience of "subscribers".
That applies at least until there is a universally adopted micropayment system, and maybe after that, too.
On edit, as a by-the-way: While it's true that everybody with a library is trying to do that, that only proves that it's trendy. Where are the numbers that say it's actually profitable?
As soon as a paid service goes subscription-only I drop it generally unless I really really need it.
I know not everyone is as anti-subscription as I am, but really, 100? Anything that pays "automatically" and auto-renews is something I have less control and visibility over so I'll do anything to avoid it.
https://archive.org/details/india.-the.-modi.-question.-s-01...
It would be the first thing I'd get in a country with restricted internet :)
I suggest trying out wireguard, it's a ton easier to set up than openvpn or ipsec
I haven't been blocked on decently reputed hosting providers
What do you mean?
Ummm.... Yes
I don't know what bridge you are trying to sell here. The Indian media is known as modia for a reason. NDTV, the only center channel had a hostile takeover. The TV media is a joke focused 74% on stoking Hindu Muslim conflict and attacking anyone who passes a negative comment about Modi.
While I'm just as displeased with India censoring stuff for the rest of us, keep in mind that for most of the world, Google/YouTube is that censorious foreign entity.
The pogrom is an internal matter. A hitjob is external interference. /s
Btw, I watched the documentary and it actually covers the Supreme court judgement, so the responding accounts are actually spreading misinformation.
I'm sure that line on the map is really important to the victims...
I find myself continually dumbfounded by the kind of reasoning and justifications, the supporters BJP come up with. Thousands of people killed and in many cases, even worse. Terming it an "internal matter" is being cruel beyond my comprehension.
> Btw, I watched the documentary and it actually covers the Supreme court judgement, so the responding accounts are actually spreading misinformation.
So you're implying the Supreme Court has a "Ministry of Truth" type of thing going on? How many judges transferred, maligned and were even killed for clean chits? Institutions ceased being autonomous and ethical a long time ago in India.
Also, the one member of the indian bureaucracy who dared to question Modi's role in the riots - Sanjiv Bhatt - was sentenced to life in prison.
I am not sure what the poster here is insinuating with the claim that the case was tried under a different government. In no reasonable democracy are the courts swayed by politics.
Court judgements are made by humans and humans err. This is not the binary you are making it out to be. Indian courts are hamstrung by the rest of the Indian legal system and are routinely used to silence dissent and harass the small fry.
All judicial appointments need to be approved by the government. Retired judges get plum political appointments including to the Rajya Sabha.
The Centre refused to appoint Saurabh Kirpal because he is openly gay. This isn't some wild conjecture, this is the official government position: https://www.barandbench.com/news/law-ministry-says-saurabh-k...
Maybe in movies.