Aardvaarkman said:
So, how about protesting by putting up a video on Youtube that just directs people to watch the actual protest video on a different sit, such as Vimeo? Informing Youtube users that there are alternatives to Youtube might actually send a useful message.
Of course, I don't believe for a second that these "protests" actually want to send a useful message. It seems to be more about vanity, and becoming a Yutube sensation.
Because that's tedious and it still requires them to use Youtube. It's a hassle, nothing more. You may be right that they're just milking for views, likes and subscriptions though.
That's a really terrible example. Assuming that the person's phone is their primary means of accessing the internet (which it is for many people) - buying a different model of phone is a significant investment of money. Even if the phone is "free" - it is actually paid for via contract.
You missed my point completely there. I have a Nokia a smartphone. I can access the same internet as someone with an iPhone, Samsung or HTC. I can send texts to these people. If I were to use Vimeo I would be unable to communicate with people on Youtube, I would be unable to access the content I want to see on Youtube.
Also phones cost money... no shit Sherlock. You know wat doesn't cost money? Not buying an iPhone. Not buying a Samsung. It's completely free. Amazing isn't it?
In contrast, using a different video website than Youtube costs nothing. All you have to do is enter a different URL in your browser's address bar.
Sure it's easy to just enter a different URL. If you don't care about what you're watching that is. If you don't care if people are watching your content it's easy. If you do care about the content or the views then it's actually pretty hard. If everyone who's got a problem with Youtube straight up decided to leave collectively and agreed on an alternative then it wouldn't be a problem. You see the difficulty here? Do you realize that Youtube don't have the same content? Are you confused about this?
So, why don't they use their videos to call for Youtube users to stop using Youtube?
Because they understand the fact that people wouldn't do that just because they were told to do it? Because they have a realistic mindset? Because it seems easier to cause Youtue to change than millions of individual people and content creators to change?
I certainly did, and there's nothing about this that isn't stupid. The most stupid things are thinking that Youtube wouldn't do this in the first place, using Youtube to post their videos, and the ego-driven, ineffectual content of the videos they did post. This is stupidity all the way down.
So it's a good idea to address people who don't care rather than people who do? It's stupid to complain to a company that has no relation to the company than to complain to the one actually doing the dicking around?
Yopaz said:
Now if we are to go into the ridiculous comparisons here. If you don't like an upcoming bill that your government is proposing should you be protesting it within your own country or move before you're allowed to protest it? Why keep paying taxes and use your country's services if you disagree with a new law? It's clearly stupid!
Because the government is a completely different thing than a private company? Because you don't publish your protests on the government's servers or get paid by the government to speak your mind?
I didn't think that things could get any more stupid, but now this. Wow.[/quote]
I started that segment by saying I was going to make ridiculous comparison... if you read that part again you might see the first sentence mentioning that. You do know what ridiculous means right? It doesn't mean i was supposed to be a smart or a good comparison if that's what you thought. If you thought that argument was stupid, well, it was supposed to be.
Here's some reading for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
