I need a sidekick like that, too

His Spidey Sense™ is so strong he responds before the question is asked (also this is why he made it in time, he was chasing a taxi an hour in advance to be just a bit late)

Only third party sync, I use Syncthing for that, works great most of the time

1. What could’ve fit in a screen of text should not be a video at all
2. I save videos for later all the time, I just watch them never
3. If some information is not visual-first, and not entertainment, if it may be important to people and should be spread, it also better not be a video. Maybe accompanied by a video to make use of audience reach, if you already have a channel with an audience, that is.

The IP owner can print more, but if the owner is gone or legally unclear, then yes. Although I don’t think this was the real intention, because greed looks like a simpler reason and fits

You’re right that there is a lot of good content, too. The problem is that a platform doesn’t care as long as you stay and watch, also you’ll need quite a lot of effort to find your own good content. So when I come to YouTube for something and end up watching more, I always know that I failed to YouTube trying to rip me off

If only I could get addicted to something socially acceptable in under 35 minutes, like doing chores, or at least maths

Maybe you’re right and it could work. I’m afraid there’s always a share of sociopaths this will not affect, but this may be seen as impossible to fix anyway. What I am also afraid of is that the speed of changes is glacial in this model, and sometimes people are bullied into suicide in the course of mere weeks

Yeah, trusting someone to make right decisions is hard because this trust usually ends up being betrayed sooner or later.

Regarding the first part, I meant that we as a community can’t put enough pressure on a bully to make em leave, if that bully is part of the community that supports em.

And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?

Except for the countries that have anti-hate laws that are deliberately vague and specifically used to jail anyone who is disliked by the government. China and Russia come to mind as examples, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.

Besides hate-speech, I’m not sure how much should be censored really. China does a lot of censoring to ‘protect’ their citizens from everything, I’m not sure this would be a good thing even if that really was a goal.

And protecting children from traumatising content looks like another good thing to do, but under that banner I usually see governments doing whatever they want without caring about children past using their image.

With that I agree

What’s the joke about? Does Ireland block everything that comes from the Netherlands?

I think that if replies are rare and spot on, it may be a good PR. But do it every time and it will just be a waste of time without any good results

saying that the British should inherit it is a very weak argument

Yes, I am not making that argument, inheritors mush be at least somewhat related.

Although, in case you’re talking about, the indigenous people’s artifacts will likely end up in the country of their conquerors and oppressors, which is also a shame

It’s not an empire if you call it a federation /s

This is reasonable, but what if the culture that created the artifacts already went extinct like Maya? Besides, we’re not only talking about how it shouldn’t have been done in the past, but also about what to do today with that past.

It’s easy to say that everything bad of today is only because of wrongdoings of yesterday, but it is not useful and usually is only used as propaganda for something that has no justification except for the past being bad.

Edit: although, now that I think about it, coming from this viewpoint, that past is past and we should care about present, it’s clear that you’re right. If the culture bearer (or the inheritor, but this is grey zone for me) wants to destroy what is rightfully theirs, so be it. There is a bit of an issue with making those decisions by all eligible people, not a couple of extremists, though. Well, I think I found the contradiction that I had in me

As far, as I know, there are many cases of not returning on the ground of owners not having conditions to preserve.

But thanks for replying at least, I was hoping to see opposing opinions to try to understand what am I missing, not just ‘stealing bad’ downvotes

Oh, I didn’t know that, neat. Then there’s no space for nit-picking