He wants to reach as large an audience as possible, and being perfectly principled isn't the way to go. Self-hosted platforms are great if you want to preach to the choir.
I'm not saying there aren't benefits or that it doesn't work. Sometimes people have to buy self-help books about not shopping or eat more food to lose weight. It's still ironic.
He's primarily about "right to repair" physical things, not so much self-hosting videos. I think its an important message and he has really spent an enormous amount of time and resources on it and I don't know if he has gotten much benefit from it other than, arguably, publicity.
it doesn't seem like they care very much about owning videos, the irony would be more if they rented a tractor to drive up to your house and explain the issue.
He is talking about owning the things you purchase with your money. LIke say you buy a device but you are not allowed to repair it or upgrade it, you "buy" a piece of software but you do not actually own it or have any rights on it.
What's ironic about using a reliable, free platform to reach your 2.2 million subscribers with what would otherwise be a difficult and expensive to distribute video?
I don't think you understand irony. Announcing a campaign for ownership via an outlet you don't own is ironic. Read the definition. Irony is not a comment on the campaign's actual or potential efficacy.
It would not be ironic to distribute your ownership-promoting materials through the mail while not owning the post office. There is nothing about YouTube that reduces a creator's stake in their video.
There's some key differences there. 1, the post office doesn't keep your material on hand so people can visit and consume it. 2, you have to pay the post office each transaction. 3, the post office is taxpayer subsidized and administered by elected officials.
Again, I did not say what they are doing is bad, wrong, or whatever.
A fallacy is only relevant when you are trying to establish "truth" or, more likely, "falsity" from a well-formed premise.
You have established neither a well-formed premise that can be falsified nor any particular expertise that your opinion has any relevance at hand. Thus, the fallacy (in addition to being an "informal fallacy") you claim is moot.
