- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
Its Lunduke, a self-proclaimed a-political tech journalist. You can pretty much disregard anything that spews from his mouth.
You see, part of this company-facing discussion had to do with current hiring policies, with gems like “we have never hired based on quotas, but going forward we will discontinue the practice” bandied about on stage. Such a stance could be misconstrued as an end to its illegal and discriminatory DEI policies at the company, something IBM, Red Hat, and others are ending or getting sued for.
The hell am I reading?
This is a very weird piece written very weirdly that misconstrues an automated process as deliberate cooperation.
Which I guess makes more sense when you look up the person the reposted article is reposting which seems to be some weird Trumpy asshole who is also somehow an open source advocate guy?
This is not good reporting, but congrats, I think you made me take Adobe’s side on something and I would not have bet that was possible half an hour ago.
It’s a thinly veiled maga piece. Time to boycott yahoo. This is Donny and friends controlling the media
Hah. I fear you assuming Yahoo has an editorial line at all is giving them too much credit. All these pirated article aggregators are just regurgitating whatever algorithmically, they don’t care.
what video is it again, ms streisand?
Companies these days are just nothing but abuse. What the hell has happened to companies.
Cory Doctorow has a word for the phenomenon: enshittification.
Calculated misery by Tim Wu explains a lot too
Oh man, Tim Wu was a trailblazer during the Net Neutrality war.
These days?
You mean like this century?
Specifically Google and Adobe have always been abusing their position. I’m not sure what exactly has ever changed, apart from them getting bigger and more brazen, but they have always been bad ethically.
Google has removed the video through an automated process without talking to the owner of the channel or verifying who owns the video in the first place.
Honestly sounds like Hanlon’s Razor on Google’s part. No collusion necessary, just can’t be bothered to maintain/staff an actual effective system.
This is exactly how YouTube’s DMCA takedown system works, and how media companies have been abusing it since it’s inception. Someone claims copyright on your video, and Google immediately takes it down. You then can contest the claim and Youtube will put it back up. But the claimant can contest your contest, and Google will then tell you that you can’t have it up and have to settle in court with the claimant. Oh, and you get a strike to boot.
The whole process is automated, because there’s so much content now it’s impractical for every single takedown request to be addressed by a human. And because there is no punishment for bad-faith takedown requests, there is no incentive for the claimants to ensure their IP is really being infringed.
And that’s how you get your own recording of a classical piece from centuries ago get taken down because it sounds like another copyrighted video. No fucking shit, we’re playing from the same sheet music.
Where can we watch the video?
naaaaaah… upstanding corporate global citizens such as google and adobe? no, never. no chance in hell. they’d never collude to do such an evil thing…
