This isn’t the solution people think it is. The only thing Google needs to do now to make it legal is to force a prompt asking for your consent where if you disagree you are completely blocked off from the site. That is, assuming Alexander Hanff, the one carrying on this narrative since 2016, is correct and interpreted the response correctly. In Article 5 of the 2002/58/EC there is a second paragraph that states the following:

Paragraph 1 shall not affect any legally authorised recording of communications and the related traffic data when carried out in the course of lawful business practice for the purpose of providing evidence of a commercial transaction or of any other business communication.

I’m no lawyer, but I tell you who has them in droves, Google and YouTube, whom I’m sure have already discussed whether their primary means of business revenue, ads, could be construed as a commercial transaction for which evidence is needed. I’m not sure how a two page reply from the EU commission to his request telling him Article 5 applies really helps the guy out if Article 5 also includes the means by which YouTube is allowed to run scripts that provide evidence that ads have been able to be properly reproduced.

Still, assuming Alexander Hanff is right, Google just needs to add a consent form and begin blocking access to all content if users disagree, so it seems to me his claim is damned if he is right, and damned if he isn’t right.

They can still move to whatever substitutes it, like the fediverse, but that also likely means more pressure to make it better, too.

Please do it and convince Steve Huffman as well. The fediverse always welcomes more users.

Oh, and regarding the “Update”, most of those are still relying on YT hosting, and the independent exceptions aren’t dealing with even a fraction of the bandwidth or moderation costs, never mind actually paying content creators for their content. Yes, this is a piracy community, I just tend to mind it more when the content creators being affected aren’t Hollywood.

It only seems like a bad deal because everything we’ve been getting has been free so far and the content isn’t coming from major Hollywood producers. It’s about on par with Netflix and Disney+, except we consume a lot more of YouTube. I’m pretty sure they are also taking into account that some people will continue adblocking. They need a lot more moderation than Netflix of Disney+ and they have a lot more load on their servers and consumption per user.

As an aside, people can downvote all they want, but if they are really going to push for this, they might better spend their time searching for alternatives that won’t domino alongside YouTube if this is countermovement is really going to be a thing.

I mean, I saw the warnings, but still could close them and keep watching them. Still, I ended up getting Premium to support YT streamers I watch without ads. It’s either that or that YouTube dies with a domino effect on the industry of small time streamers. I watch it far more than Netflix or Disney Plus, and have payed zero cents for the convenience of adblock. I’ll still keep it installed to use with other Google accounts, but I have no problem paying.

I can understand the people that are angry because a service that has been free for so long begins charging, but don’t be disingenuous and begin saying that the service doesn’t cost anything to maintain, or worse, that the whole business model is nonviable when it’s asking about the same for premium as other streaming services that have been having no problem existing, specially when the money coming out of those services should be in recent memory considering it was one of the major points regarding the writer’s strike (getting a cut from streaming).

deleted by creator

Oh, cool, so when does he sacrifice himself for the good of the universe?

It’s a stain on government agencies that haven’t left it yet, honestly. Specially considering the federated alternatives. People should just leave and stop giving it legitimacy, leaving only the hate speech and the ability to prosecute it as such.

Well, they don’t want to do the one thing needed to make it successful: transparency. Maybe it can’t be.

Until populism gets a beef with it and begins appealing to the crazies, who will happily egg and throw paint bombs solar panels. But at least we haven’t reached that point in the timeline yet.

Is he … is Musk growing an evil goatee?

Of course, it’s by design.

Do it. Not only will that move a large segment of the content providers away from the social network, but it will open the market up again to the competition, which includes the Fediverse. By all means shoot yourself in the foot because those “dumb f-cks” no longer trust you because you’ve burnt that good will.

Someone needed to press the X on the X.

The development of cheaper manufacturing methods has been hiding the decline for quite some time now.

Fortunately for education that it is able to get people to be more than people then. There are things that enable their baser instincts more than others. You won’t read a Charles Dickens novel with emojis.

Email, an anachronism? Not to the corporate world. What do you think makes it obsolete and or replaces it, in regards to legal, official, and business matters? Is this an experienced opinion, or is it simply something you don’t use because you don’t need to and perhaps somebody does it for you?

I think there is room in the world for an basic HTML service that can be viewed in lynx/links, in no small part due to how it usually means those services can be used by the blind and visually impaired as well under more circumstances.

Where to? I’d love to hear about what basic HTML service you are migrating to … admittedly in no small part due to wanting to see whether it really is a basic HTML service and judge your comment acordingly. There are a lot of people who will hop into hate trains even when they don’t care about the destination.