Does he work for Google? For Youtube? More than a few people here on HN must, right? But there are so many like him, it can't be the explanation all the time. Does he worship big tech companies to the point that if he shills for them, he believes that career success will rain down on him, like some sort of occupational cargo culting thing? Is he some amateur Deviant Art person, who shills for obscene copyright maximalism for similar reasons? Is it just that he does the one sort of 4chan-level shitposting that people can get away with on HackerNews, for the same reason the 4chan people do their thing there (whatever that is)?
It's weird. It's both the one topic you can see that stuff here on, where it isn't wished away to the cornfield. And the people doing it seem confident they can get away with it.
Here's this: "I hate ads. My time is valuable. I want free things. What I do is justifiable. Especially when you consider moral relativism and their practices."
And this: "I hate war, but the corporate media of the 2000s sold it to me and then didn't pay the bill; so we need citizen media."
I don't think we're entitled to free video streaming; maybe because I remember how much it costs to host an .mp4 without HLS on a shared hosting account without nginx-rtmp-module (C and ffmpeg, not yet Rust) and how long it takes to encode video without buying custom hardware video encoding accelerator cards and low-volume ASIC/FPGA TLS load balancer accelerators because now video over HTTPS, and because I don't want to pull media from your MediaGoblin tube site.
I don't support artists suing fans listening from the streets.
Artists are entitled to proceeds from their work if that's how they want to run the show.
I do support paying artists with the audio fingerprinting that YouTube pioneered.
(As an artist and a visual artist - it doesn't matter what kind - I don't want to ruin YouTube with payout demands; but if musical artists are due their cut for their plays, then visual artists are too. No musical artists have yet stood up for the plight of visual artists. Nobody has yet determined how to pay everyone on a production with a smart contract that gives them their fair cut for their contribution to the collaborative ari project.)
It costs money to encode, host, and moderate video, live video, comments, and live chats.
It costs money to stream video.
Good content costs money to create, in an ad hominem-d influencer-affected landscape devoid of critical thinking and media literacy.
Artists don't get paid when you stream for free without ads or premium subscription.
How can we pay artists and content producers and privately bootstrapped infrastructure if the marginal cost of a stream is not offset by the marginal returns of a stream?
Content creators have real costs.
--
Copyleft is my decision as an artist. Open Source is my decision as a developer who can't donate their services to charity.
--
Anti-competitive anti-competition context:
What's not fair, anticompetitively? Tying, Bundling, Exclusive agreements, Price fixing, Colluding cartels (for non-essential commodities), Bribery, Kickbacks, Becoming a lobbyist without waiting a fair amount of time first,
What is fair? Selling to the highest bidder. Approved mergers and acquisitions. Strategies against hostile corporate takeover. Taking the bank's money and your creditworthiness and bootstrapping. Penny-pinching to scale and gain market share. Appeasing shareholders/owners. Charging people when they use hours of free services per week.
What is different to you between these scenarios?
That they've agreed to sell their content on a network with ads (which in particular enables low income folks to be fans) does not entitle me to free shtyff from them; though I may also have a justified medical reason for tuning out ads entirely unless they're funny.