hitpointdrew

4 jaar geledendiscuss

Please provide an example of any database that is tamper resistant. As a DevOps engineer I have setup and configured many different databases, I have yet to come across any that someone with admin credentials (which you always need at one least of), didn’t have the ultimate ability to tamper and do anything they will to database.

hitpointdrew

4 jaar geledendiscuss

> would you stay for 2% more salary

Wut? I hope you responded with something like "Hell no, but make it 60% and we can talk". Typically when I have jumped ship I got something like 20%-40% more with my new employer.

hitpointdrew

6 jaar geledendiscuss

Not shocking. I never trusted Chrome, and never switched over to it. I never understood that Firefox hate. I never thought it was "slow" like so many complaints I have seen. Apparently Firefox is fast and amazing again, I certainly think it is better than it was a several years ago, but again even several years ago I didn't ever think it was slow.

hitpointdrew

7 jaar geledendiscuss

>Is it even possible to scale a human operation to this level, even with youtube's checkbook?

YT probably doesn't make money. We don't know because Alphabet doesn't put it as a separate line item in their earnings reports. Insiders say it about "breaks even".

hitpointdrew

7 jaar geledendiscuss

> That system is abused by large companies who know how to exploit their algorithms

Not even this, but the algorithms are designed in way that is bias towards the person making the copyright claim. It isn't like neutral algorithm and the companies just figured out how to leverage it better than creators, it is literally built in their favor.

hitpointdrew

7 jaar geledendiscuss

>Is it fair for YouTube to then de-monetize the independent content creators who are creating make-up tutorials

Fair, no. Legal? Yes.

> Over time, the independent creators have less YouTube ad revenue share.

OK, and? There is no fundamental right to YouTube monetization.

>Their competitor (in which Alphabet has a stake), is "coincidentally" given higher search ranking and more visibility in the recommendations as well.

Ranking is a problem, if you are platform then everyone has equal voice then the ranking system needs to be 100% equal and transparent, which it is current neither.

> What happens to the independent content creators over time?

They find other ways to make $$ or they find another career. Lots of YT's are now pushing things like pateron membership. There is also nothing stopping any YT from going out and securing their own advertisers and doing their own ads in their videos.

>What is the legal remedy for the above scenario?

Legal remedy is simple, YT can't ban/restrict/bury content. YT can decide who, if anyone, they want to monetize.

>How would one even prove this case in court?

It is obvious when a video is taken down, and if the ranking system was 100% transparent it would also be easy to verify if there was tampering ("My video had 1mil views in the first 24 hours, this other video had 200k views the first 24 hours, the other video was trending, mine wasn't.")

hitpointdrew

7 jaar geledendiscuss

> The Platform vs Publisher debate.

Not really. If the discussion was about weather a video should be allowed to exist, or be taken down, then yes it would be publisher vs platform. But this is a case of monetization vs non-monetization. I think YouTube, Twitter, ect. should be treated as "Platforms" and that nothing should ever be deleted/banned/taken down unless it is strictly illegal. That said, monetization is entirely a different beast, YouTube as a business can pick and choose which videos to monetize and which ones not to. Restricting content is a violation of the 1st amendment, refusing to pay creators is a business decision.

comments