Jul (they/she)

YouTube did make some changes to their terms primarily for creators that get paid for content. They added some new LLM-based scanning of content to find stuff that is too repetitive or didn’t contain enough original content. Assuming the creators you looked at have mostly original content rather than remixing of content which may be misinterpreted by LLMs as not being “original enough”, they could be falling victim to overaggressive hits if they use a consistent format in their content since LLMs don’t really understand context, only patterns.

I’d be interested to find out if the creators got any notification from YouTube on the reason for removal of the content.

Considering the community this is posted in, I think it’s fair to mention (if maybe not directly link to) there are devices that decode DRM and other encoding and pass on a stream that can be watched without needing all of that. The ones I saw were under $100. Though it’s definitely possible that these may get cracked down on eventually either by customs or changes in the DRM that requires internet connectivity to decode which has been discussed though seems dumb to need internet to watch a broadcast signal, but greed often causes stupid things like that.

An antenna? If you don’t have a TV, you can get a tuner dongle and antenna for your PC and use VLC or other streaming video clients. Unfortunately, the services that take over-the-air signals and put them online usually get killed off by lawsuits. But tuner dongles and half decent, compact antennas are pretty cheap.

If it’s POSIX compliant then it will work on all versions of Linux/Unix. Otherwise it depends on specific implementations that have branched for decades.

Possibly, but I don’t see Google doing that either. It’s not about where the app comes from really. The thing they are going to restrict is the developer. A developer can not have their app installed on a certified phone, regardless of where the user got the app, if the developer is not registered.

So, since there are no regulations to allow a user to install apps from any chosen developer, only from any chosen app store, there likely will be no regulatory recourse like Apple is facing as mentioned by the OP.

This is different, by design. Sideloading and alternate app stores are still perfectly fine. It’s just that the developer has to give a bunch of personal into to Google in order for their app not to be rejected by the phone itself. Middleman doesn’t matter which is where most if the regulations are. Problem is that many open source apps don’t have a developer willing to spend the time and money or give up their privacy in order to publish an app they don’t make money on. So it’s designed to kill off FOSS apps.

More evidence that although I love the idea of the MIT license, it is not good when large corporate interests and their money get involved. It’s too easy for the code to get scooped up and relicensed or just hidden away. Copyleft licensed projects are the only ones I’ll work on anymore.

X is a right-wing propaganda platform now. Bluesky is not a good alternative though. It’s just as controlled and toxic as X was just before Elan bought it and will eventually become what X is now when a major corporation or rich person decides to grab it or it goes public. The federation functionality is just for show and marketing. I wish people would stop just jumping when platforms become truly horrible and then jumping to something that will be made as horrible very easily after it becomes popular enough.

Unfortunately, the current state of the patent office is extremely understaffed and mostly nontechnical. So, there’s not enough qualified examiners to examine patents, not just in software, but medical devices, voting machines, and lots of other industries. So essentially if a patent is submitted by a major company, it just gets rubber stamped. And it’s up to the courts to sort it out. Unfortunately that sorting out is biased and understaffed, too, so usually the initial case will go to the patent holder by default and it’s not until an appeal or two on those biases and technical misinterpretations that it can be invalidated. So it’s rare for a smaller company to be able to spend that much money to invalidate an obvious idea like this. Of course this is by design to give large corporations an unfair advantage. If they want some tech, they just sue for a stupid patent, wait until the company either folds and then they can steal it legally, or goes bankrupt fighting it and they can acquire them hostilely.