that mentality is probably what most ppl started with. however, youtube burnt quite a lot of bridges. i would assume, that many ppl, just like me, wont do the 3 clicks to disable adblock for youtube.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.
not technically a fronted. however, if you use it mainly for downloading YT content, it will run into the same problem as many frontends.
Yes, I told someone to inform themselves before making assumptions. Which, I think, is a reasonable expectation.
The rest of the comment was pointing out how archive.org acts like any other public library and therefore should not be treated differently. This does not carry hostility against the person I am replying to.
Please inform yourself. In these comments and on their website, it is covered that they do not provide books freely. Just like any other library books can be borrowed exactly as many times as they own a copy.
Just like any other library they sometimes provide a download for Adobe Digital Edition, which manages your lends on books. But as your friend with DRM stripping tools for sure can confirm: DRM is just an annoyance for legitimate customers, it forces legitimate users to use specific applications, while pirates get the freedom to choose how they interact with the not any more protected media. But this is a discussion for another thread as archive.org treats copyrighted books just like any other library.
Please go to archive.org > Books > Books to Borrow
Select any book which strikes your fancy. You will see a reading excerpt, like flicking through pages in a library. if you have a free account, you can lend it for 1h at a time.
Or look at this video https://dn720701.ca.archive.org/0/items/openlibrary-tour-2020/openlibrary.mp4
That means that if the Internet Archive and its partner libraries have only one copy of a book, then only one patron can borrow it at a time, just like other library lending.
Lending and renting stuff is not piracy! Many corporate suits want people to start believing this. but i remember going to the library and renting books, movies and games. it was not piracy back then, and it wont be now.
pretty sure those are the noisy minority. afterall more content drives more people. artificial walls wont benefit anyone…
Right now I am using their software - so are you. Even though there was again a post about one of the devs. In the very best case those where some rather controversial statements about how the Chinese government treats Uyghurs. I strongly disagree with those statements and am still using lemmy and suggest it to friends. IMO the technical solutions is sound and much better than reddit.
What are you asking about? I don’t support extremist ideology - be it left or right. Extremism and violence was never beneficial to the political discourse or greater public. So i disagree with those ideologies. I vote on laws and elect people which i believe will keep extremism out of our system.
If it comes to the quality of someones work, private conviction does not matter. Sure, they might let personal beliefs bleed into their work. But there the beauty of Open Source comes into play: I can check it myself and if i don’t have the capability to do so, many others do.
So if they are on the far spectrum of something i disagree and i am very greatfull for good quality of work they provide for free, i might still give a small donation. If they are actually extremist, i prefer to let the authorities deal with it. Where i come from the police actually cracks down on this kind of people and they probably are better at doing so than me myself.
Just because there will be people who ask about freedom of speech… Someone way smarter than I said something like: “Your freedom ends where someone else’s freedom begins”. This should be the base rule to identify extremism. So to stay with NAZIs: A far right person who doesn’t want Jewish people owning a store infringes on someone else’s freedom. Therefore that person is an extremist, should not be protected by his freedom and authorities should deal with them.
I don’t see a problem about their work, just because of their political orientation. And frankly, neither should you.
They develop good software, which is open source and everyone can inspect it. There is nothing wrong about them getting paid for it. Not giving donations to them because of what they believe would be the same as an employer running you through a political evaluation before actually employing you.
Don’t get me wrong: there is nothing wrong about not donating (i did not). But not donating, solely because of some ideology a developer of open source Software has (which does not reflect in the code), seems quite stuck up to me.
You guys are funny. If you don’t want to see ads, use adblock. Now SO is a free platform for people that want to contribute.
well, there are quite a lot of stupid things i did as a kid. kids just need to learn critical thinking through experience.
i would guess, that a large audience of youtube is kids: except retirees, they usually have the most free time.