Because Mastodon and the entire Fediverse is infested with the most rabid sort of users that even Twitter couldn't stomach and has turned a blind eye to this fact? I mean, there's a reason why they keep getting brought up over and over and people continually nope out of signing up over there. They've got a demographic problem, they refuse to acknowledge it, and it's killing growth. Why would any media outlet want to participate knowing that?
This. It's not just The Guardian, though. It's pretty much all moss media. They got too used to an era where they could talk and the public couldn't talk back (or they could but only through letters to the editor which they could conveniently filter to just the voices they wanted to hear).
Even then it seems like a crapshoot whether or not it works, because somehow if you become highly infective but otherwise are flying under the radar you'll still be detected and suddenly all governments start closing up shop... or at least that was the case in Pandemic II. I can't speak to any of the clones.
I'm sure this won't lead to people flooding X with the most racist, sexist, and otherwise offensive content they possibly can in order to ruin the value of that training set or anything. No, surely... no one would do that, right?
> My wife is a content creator on YT and hasn’t spent a dime on advertising.
Is your wife a representative sample of all Youtubers? If not, your datum is irrelevant.
> unless your audience is very tech oriented, they’re not going to switch off whatever platform the ads are on to watch videos hosted elsewhere.
Having now witnessed multiple creators hop from one platform to another and drag their audiences with them because they're JUST THAT ENTERTAINING... no, you're wrong. People will gladly follow artists to a better platform if it means they're able to make a living and/or not be censored.
If you think that all politics is violence then you're always going to be woefully ineffective at it. Never bring a shotgun to a negotiation when a well-placed fact (or fiction) will do.
A certain medieval gentlemen from Alamut would beg to differ. One does not need a standing army and nuclear weapons so much as the ability to inflict your politics on others credibly and unavoidably. There are many ways to do that, not all of which necessarily involve violence.
Put another way: There are many minority populations throughout history and up to this very day that have managed to carve out a niche in their host population without necessarily employing mass violence to do it.
The "make money" button, however, is an illusion for 99% of publishers. The one case where it does seem to make out is with livestreams, and then only because unlike topical short-form videos, streaming is not a winner-take-all environment where one or two people run away with all the eyeballs, but instead people will tend to decommoditize topical streaming based on the personality of the broadcaster and your ability to form a parasocial relationship with them... hence even a relatively unknown person, if they're persistent, can manage to grab a few hundred regular viewers who'll toss a few bucks each stream... not enough to make a living, but enough for beer money. The prime advantage of youtube in this scenario is not having to deal with setting up hosting/DDoS filtering and negotiating with a payment processor ... just push the button and upload. So for streamers I think it can still be worth it, but for people posting short form content I think they might be better off rolling their own because they can't rely on Youtube's algorithm to give them enough eyeballs to be profitable.
It really doesn't. To understand why, you have only to comprehend the following: Whether someone is searching under a particular keyword, or just browsing whatever pops up on the home page, the average browser has a finite amount they're willing to scroll before abandoning their search... and chances are your video is NOT going to be placed highly in those results unless you're directing a firehose at it from offsite via Twitter, forum posts, news aggregators, or paying Youtube to promote your video flat out (which is such an obvious moneygrab on their part its disgusting). In other words: If you rely on their algorithm to promote your work you're literally playing the lottery and, much like the lottery, statistically you're going to lose. It makes far more sense to find bandwidth and hosting, negotiate with an ad network, and direct a firehose at the resulting site... but that's more work than some are willing to do. shrug Oh well.
Pretty sure he's talking about the way things should be, not the way things are. The way things should be: None of this would be a problem. The way things are: Brewster Kahle is jeopardizing the archive's mission with his cavalier attitude towards copyright that is causing the archive to lose lawsuit after lawsuit. While fighting bad law is certainly a good thing, maybe imperiling the archive in the process is not. Unfortunately, such nuanced takes seem to be lost on people who treat these issues as a form of team sports and demand you either be simply pro- or anti-.
We're here today, but we'll be gone tomorrow(-ish). Before HN I was on Reddit, before that Digg, before that Slashdot, and so on. Being in any particular place at any particular time is no guarantee we'll be there going forward because the social networking anacyclosis is undefeated.
It's a combination of things really. Part of it was not being able to discover new content (Google notwithstanding, since Google is good for finding things when you know what you want, while social media feeds you things you didn't even know you wanted). The other part was not being able to talk back or otherwise iterate on what people had published in a way that others could see it easily. Finally, it comes down to money... people wanted to make money and social media (and yes, I count Youtube among social media in its earliest incarnation) made it a lot easier to do that.
Despite this, people are departing existing aggregators and social media for SIGs to get around the spam, the screeching, and general annoyance... so we're probably going to see a more balanced network over the next decade... because making money isn't everything.
It really depended on the era and what area you were in. After the breakup of the Bell System, flat-rate areas (Zone 1 calling) spread across the RBOCs, but ultimately that still meant that metropolitan areas tended to benefit more than rural areas. The SF Bay Area was a prime example of this where the East Bay arguably had one of the best LATAs around that could reach dozens of bulletin boards.
Hopefully more Fidonet archives turn up in the coming years so people can understand what things were like back then. Ditto Compuserve... which, if I understand correctly, a large collection of documents relating thereto was acquired by the Internet Archive and awaits processing.
I'm not going to copy-paste paragraphs from The Mythical Man-Month for you. I will say that my definition accords with Brooks's definition presented therein.
No, I want "it should exist and should be paid for"... even if that amount winds up being quite small, and only a one-time payment... but I know I'm in the minority that believes nobody should work for free. I'm willing to tolerate a one-time payment knowing that good programming systems products are not going to fall out of the sky because of the amount of work required to hatch them in the first place is apparently beyond what both individual hackers and paid corporate developers are willing to put into their works, so I can't just sit back and wait for someone to write something good... if I don't pay someone who says they'll do it, it's not going to happen at all.
After dealing with the products of people writing either "just for fun" or "just for profit", I think I'm ready to meet someone who's willing to try something a little in-between... because here we are, decades later, and Brooks' assertion about the cost of Programming Systems Products remains valid, and everything written either "just for fun" or "just for profit" seems to be little more than a Program, with all the attendant lack of sound engineering that comes with it. I'll happily pay for good programming systems products if someone is willing to actually write them. I just hope someone will get past this false fun/profit dichotomy so we can actually get there.