Nobody claim to be entitled to free video, just a reasonable amount of advertising. Which is not what I (for example) get when I go on YouTube.
Google already has a definitive solution: close down the free access under a registration+payment (reasonable one). Why they are still serving free content? Why they don't get the moneys from the viewers directly?
I think that the reason is that they are inflating the number of viewers to everyone (content creator, stakeholders, etc.). You can fake viewers, you can't fake revenue. So, Google wants us to get more advertising so that they can claim that the number of views in ads increased, to earn more.
Why are you/they trying to force YouTube to require login to view video?!
Isn't this about privacy!? How can free video plays have privacy if login is required to prevent freeloading hours of free service that others pay for?
That would be a significant pivot away from free video that democratizes video, and from video URLs that people share to walled garden video URLs.
My login don't work either. I looked around in KonsoleH and other panels from the Hetzner.com website, and there is no reference to a link like the one in the Reddit post.
Cookie banners were present well before GDPR, and they are not mandated by law.
You can avoid the cookie banner in two ways:
1. Do not use tracking cookies (or other tracking tools); or
2. Ask the consensus in a non-intrusive way, e.g., directly in the page itself.
We know that no company wants to remove tracking cookies because they need to "improve the service". However, there is no reason for not using solution 2. The only reason is annoying the user: a dark pattern to force users to accept cookies.
Vouch. I was there two months ago and it was the fastest immigration of any airport I've been through... and I was coming from country from northern Africa.
What about managers and C-level people in multiple companies? I understand that these developers were fired due to performance issues, and that's ok (sort of*). However, this article implies that doing two jobs is "bad" for workers. If so, it should be the same for people in the upper-level of the company, right?
No, because (at least IMHO) it's not wrong per-se. It's wrong when (and if) it creates some performance problem.
* IMHO that's not OK for a reason: if the company cares about employees, it should understand the reason behind low performances and, if possible, help them. Often we hear that the "company is like a family": if your son will come back to school with a F, would you consider "firing" him out of the family?
Google already has a definitive solution: close down the free access under a registration+payment (reasonable one). Why they are still serving free content? Why they don't get the moneys from the viewers directly?
I think that the reason is that they are inflating the number of viewers to everyone (content creator, stakeholders, etc.). You can fake viewers, you can't fake revenue. So, Google wants us to get more advertising so that they can claim that the number of views in ads increased, to earn more.