>It’s interesting to me that they continue to spawn and nix products like this despite the reputation damage it causes.
I guess this means a "reputation" doesn't influence their profits. Some companies aren't in impression-making business, or even pretending-to-be-trying-to-make-their-customers-happy business.
Reputation may not affect Google's ad based revenue, but it absolutely affects their ability to profit in lines of business outside of ads.
Google might have made more inroads with enterprises with G suite and GCP if they didn't have that reputation. The gaming industry is a 200 billion/year market that Google could've captured a decent size of if potential customers trusted that they wouldn't quickly give up. All of that represents billions of dollars in lost opportunities.
Just guessing, but the legal situation in Germany is perfectly clear: You are free to download any content from streaming platforms as long as it is not an "obvious illegal source". Youtube being a subcompany of Google/Alphabet clearly does not qualify as "obviously illegal". The catch is, that it is still illegal in Germany to bypass copy-protecting measures. I.e. if you would rip a Netflix stream that uses Widivine/DRM, that would be illegal. I think this is the argument they used in this court case, although I was not aware that youtube videos use browser DRM.
> although I was not aware that youtube videos use browser DRM
I'm pretty sure they don't, at least not for all resolutions. I'd never install Widevine into my main Firefox, but I watch YouTube daily though it. Perhaps the copy protections are more security by obscurity (i.e. weird endpoints, weird parameters, arbitrary requirements, etc.) although I have absolutely no idea since I've never read yt-dlp source code.
Have you ever considered the possible difference between what's officially allowed and what's actually happening?
Nowadays, when information is abundant, individual stories don't matter all that much; what does matter is building the overall narrative. Allowing critical stories doesn't affect that.
I agree that it was ineffective, that's why I think you should put that link in your bio- I don't think nearly as many people would waste much time talking to you if they were just linked to why you were banned instead of only seeing your biased version of it.
> RT’s parent company, TV-Novosti, is registered as a state-owned Autonomous Non-commercial Organization (ANO) with the Russian Ministry of Justice. According to TV-Novosti’s official filings with the Ministry, it is almost entirely funded by the state budget, with the exact figure ranging annually between 99.5% and 99.9%.
That would depend entirely on the specific details, including that 99% funding number. If you wanna allege specifics about NPR beyond "they once hired someone who used to work for the government", go for it.
you are asserting that having ever worked with the government necessarily means that you are silently, privately doing their editorial bidding on their behalf and I do not think that is reasonable or appropriate
So is your argument that NPR is a mouthpiece for the US government? I think that requires some evidence, rather than flinging about flimsy associations like this.
Except this is a pure marketing talk, ie this phrase literally doesn't mean anything quantifiable. Unless you're trying to argue that NPR's CEO, which came directly from US government propaganda agency, maintains "editorial independence" in some magic, American-specific way.
I think it's funny that all the Americans/Russians commenting here seem to believe there are only two public broadcasters in the world: RT, and NPR. And that Twitter was merely being unfair by not labeling NPR as "state affiliated." ;)
In fact, as I noted elsewhere in this thread, there are many (dozens?) of other public broadcasters around the world, most of which are not labeled as "state affiliated"--apparently in keeping with Twitter's (IMO reasonable) distinction between "state controlled" and "state funded/editorially independent."
Musk's eye of Sauron fell upon NPR--and only NPR, not Deutsche Welle or Radio France or CBC or BBC or any of the other respected independent public broadcasters--because he is, in the American sense, a right-wing nutjob with an ax to grind.
That Twitter would bend their principles--in either direction--to American domestic politics in such a transparent way should give users, especially those who are not interested in American culture wars, pause.
It's sad to see that so far much of the conversation here is going exactly how Twitter would prefer it goes... focused on whether 1% of funding qualifies as "state affiliated". When the real story is that Musk decided to arbitrarily target an organization based on his presumptions about its political beliefs.
Plenty of evidence that this isn't true, unfortunately. And that's precisely the point that the GP made: people are using this as an opportunity to split hairs over the percentage of control, rather than to identify this as yet another way in which Elon Musk abuses his ownership of Twitter.
>Musk's eye of Sauron fell upon NPR--and only NPR, not Deutsche Welle or Radio France or CBC or BBC
Well, sure, but you gotta start somewhere. At least this is a move in the right direction; let's hope for similar labelling for other media that deserve it.
I assume Musk will get distracted by something else--a bathroom-humor pun off the name of one of his companies, say, or realizing that 4/20 is just around the corner again, or the implacable, unconquerable, immutable existential sadness of realizing that he's truly alone in this world with nobody, despite all his wealth and power, whom he can trust truly loves him--before he realizes there are public broadcasters in other countries.
C'est la vie. It's hard being at the top (depending on the stock price on a given day).
Truth hurts, I suppose? Or are you going to argue with a straight face that the fact that NPRs CEO came directly from US government propaganda bureau doesn't prove the new labeling correct?
I don't care about Lensing's bio, or even him as a person. What matters is, ex-propaganda (protip: https://www.wordnik.com/words/propaganda) bureau head is now leading NPR, an allegedly independent institution. Imagine what you wrote above but substituting China for US.
