Hacker News Reader

Comment by sbergot | Hacker News Reader

I mean it works both ways no? Their server their right? If they don't think they can benefit from you viewing the content they serve, they can choose not to serve it?

View on HN

Yes, which is the reason I don't really care that much. If youtube dies tomorrow, something else will pop in its place. That is how internet is supposed to work. Route damage and whatnot. We all just got really happy and complacent with the current batch of benevolent overlords.

Edit: Let me them turn on the screws, I says.

Someone has to pay for the bandwidth and the servers. You can only convince investors so many times to burn their money for years so that everybody has access to video hosting. Maybe governments should step in.

Or.. and I know how people are averse to paying their own money, people don't rely so much on other people's infrastructure? Yeah, it will require people to learn some things, but it would make web a little less unbearable again.

But I dream.

edit: I just thought about a little more. How would that work with UDM. Would they be able to detect that?

edit 2: to the downvoters, tell me how I am wrong. Argue your point. Don't simply assume status quo is the desired state.

I lived through that and had self-hosted video. It's both expensive and painful: YT just delivers video very well, with auto captioning, and comments. I remember when you'd view a random site and hope video would play. If it's YouTube I expect it to work. Huge UX improvement.

That's what 403 errors are for. But once you send your program to my personal machine to be run, I will use whatever tools at my disposal to make it useable, as is my right.

And so will they.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com