No, they didn't. They baited the large majority with convenience and promises of free services, who got into the trap happily.
Those of us who were warning about the importance of not giving up our self-sovereignty are free. All it requires is just a little bit of effort to self-host things.
Stop being lazy and crying for regulation, when the people themselves can take action.
>Stop being lazy and crying for regulation, when the people themselves can take action.
Currently using a $200 laptop with linux, browsing with Firefox, watch any videos through redirect and invideous, have a host file block and using Mullvad. My phone is a $120 android with no google account getting apps though software using f-droid and auroa. I back up nothing to the cloud. I use signal for all messaging and I pay for a private and green email service.
Please don't assume what I am doing and what I am warning about. When I say "Us" I include myself because I am part of the community. When others are trapped I am also trapped because other use these services and I have to communicate through them.
I am trapped because I have to constantly use effort to get out of these traps. Asking people to "self host" when they can barely use an iPhone is just ridiculous.
> Asking people to "self host" when they can barely use an iPhone is just ridiculous.
It's not people that I am asking to self-host. It's the companies.
Instead of the Verge writing an article complaining about Youtube, it would be infinitely more productive if they got together with other publishers and put up one video instance platform of their own. Hell, they could even get to write more than one article about it after that.
If you read the article you would not have made this comment:
"..why on earth wouldn’t YouTube want people to click over to its app?
The short answer is money. Somewhat straightforwardly, YouTube has chosen to degrade the user experience of the embedded player publishers like Vox Media use, and the only way to get that link back is by using a slightly different player that pays us less and YouTube more."
>YouTube has chosen to degrade the user experience of the embedded player
How is my user experience "degraded" by not having a link back to youtube and/or missing the branding? Why would I ever want to go to youtube to view the video when I can already view the video on the first party publisher's site? Does the lack of a youtube link mean every site self-hosts their own video is similarly "degraded"? Are you really sure that if the status quo was reversed, that people won't be complaining that youtube adding their branding was some sort of "greedy" money grab or whatever?
