QuietCF

This is how it used to be but people would put a thumbnail into their video for 1 frame to then use it as the thumbnail.

I think at that time YouTube used to take the frame in the center of the video but I’m not so sure about that one.

Downvotes are used by google to suggest content. If you downvoted something, you engaged with it, which google loves and wants more of.

The incentive for users/viewers to downvote something has always been to give other viewers a heads up. This doesn’t work anymore

Can’t help but notice the user name :) For the non-german speaking readers, it is jitter movement

Right? This sentiment reminds me of the French guys that think all americans make blanket statements. Now wait a second...

What’s the difference? What would the implication be of „don’t knock down doors in affluent neighborhoods“?

And if it wouldn’t have tried manipulating my emotions and gain access to my attention center, there were a chance that I would have read the article. Now I won’t, as the article apparently isn’t interesting on its own merits.

It doesn’t have to do with military neutrality. The sentence implies that Switzerland due to their neutral status never or almost never agree to sanctions of any kind. However their neutral status has never been an indication of that. It clearly reads as sanctions despite historical neutrality.

Either this is an entertainment piece and they can write it how they want (but it shouldn’t be mentioned on a wiki page) or it’s a news piece and should be without these kind of “suggestive but not exactly saying it” articles that blur the line between non-news and deniability thereof.

The only thing it would have cost them to not mention Switzerland’s neutrality would be clicks/money. 0% truth would have been lost writing the context properly.

This appears to me like a completely normal and legitimate copyright takedown notice because you reuploaded their YouTube video without permission? Or am I missing something? If you wanted to advertise their video you should have linked the YouTube video (assuming that you reuploaded it yourself on Reddit instead).

You were costing them ad revenue. I don’t really see any connection to NFT’s.

Edit: The original creator of the video literally commented on your Reddit post. You did in fact just rip his video. The time writing this article would have been better spent looking into copyright law for beginners. But tbh looking at the buzzwords in the title and the fact the creator commented on your post days ago it seems to me that you are simply not done milking their content yet and trying it with a blog post now.

Imagine if we were writing our laws like this, or court rulings would go like this.

“We can’t tell you what evidence we used to convict you because that would mean criminals can adjust their operations accordingly”

And then you hear someone say “people don’t get convicted for no reason”

I have no idea if the OP did or did not act fraudulently and I’m aware that we are talking about a private and not a government entity here.

For all we know (as the OP doesn’t mention trying incognito) the OP could have malicious software on their device that hijacks their browser to manipulate search results

Been lurking on hn for a year now, finally made an account because I can give some value with a comment

Youtube content creators can choose where to put the ads themselves. You will come across many videos with only the first ad or the ads set sparely in the video, some even put the ads in breaks. You can also chose to let YouTube put the ads but that’s also a one and done, one setting per video. I can confirm though that YouTube, on the automated setting, put way more ads in the past year or two than before.