From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
Around 2000 or so, I used to work in tech support for a software company who had like 5000 Windows-based customers and 5 running Solaris. My boss chose me to learn Solaris when the previous "expert" left. I bought this book and started hacking. Good times!
Oh yeah, re-reading my comment I didn't make it obvious enough, but I assumed this was something you found and didn't make yourself. When I said "they" and "them" I was talking to you about the creator, not talking about you (and past you) to the rest of the community.
I remember when all the named sites were good. Facebook was once the gold standard because they kept out the young'uns and boomers. Amazon not only had trustworthy reviews, but also only sold from trustworthy sellers—e.g. you didn't have to put up with shady sellers mixing in lower quality merch with the generic stuff that goes into big grab bins in the warehouses. Google searches were good for finding information beyond the most surface level of any topic without getting slammed by SEO procedurally generated blogs. Yahoo outperformed google in everything but search for a hot minute; I remember using it for email, news, and watching the latest music videos on their embedded RealPlayer java applet!
Youtube got monetized is what happened. The original owners sold off to Google because Google Video sucked, and the owners couldn't keep up with the growth of the site. Google decided that they should make money off of their shiny new toy. It stopped being about sharing videos, and became about keeping you engaged with "Content" so you could see more ads. YouTubers got incentivized by the algorithm to go with what appeals most to the broadest possible audiences, and the algorithm evolved in the direction of showing people whatever kept them watching ads. The front page, which used to be about highlighting odd, unique, and (most importantly) new ideas became about showing you whatever was most like whatever you had already sunk the most time into. It's like how once you buy a product, all the targeted ads change to selling you the same type of product. Their algorithms don't understand one-off purchases nor limited reserves of interest in a topic.
And on top of that mound of shit, they changed the community to enable their greed: once being a "Content Creator" was a sustainable source of income production values increased, which drove a need for a future guarantee of further income. This wave of videomakers attracted a userbase that, on average, cared more about quantity and style than substance. In turn, these types of users became instrumental in maintaining revenue for youtube-based businesses, so catering to their expectation of high-volume with ever-increasing production values became the most important factor to creators, which drove a need for increasing revenue streams. That's why even with an ad blocker, youtube is still mostly ads: sponsored segments, product reviews, and soooo much shallow pop culture engagement—references and reviews and critiques and thought pieces about media and people that won't matter in 5 years' time.
Ironically this is exactly what went wrong with analog TV and then cable, and it's what's going wrong with streaming services now. The iriny being that that is precisely why they had a large influx of users early on: it was all thevTV watchers who were tired of 1/3 of their valuable time being wasted with ads. They learned nothing and refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of the For-Profit model, electing to blame the ad-blockers, pirates, and "striminals" who make up a percentage of their viewers—instead of ever introspecting and considering that it's really their fault for pushing away the even larger subset that simply just stop watching entirely. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it, just faster and in a more spectacular way.
Do you know any replacements for these btw?
Like Lemmy somewhat replaces "social media", except I also used Facebook as a bit of a LinkedIn (b/c the latter was never good, it was instead always predatory), but people in general simply aren't going to make an account on Lemmy, no matter how much you might wish that.
And Amazon, I basically don't buy stuff anymore except from brick-and-morter stores these days - it's like I've gone backwards two decades b/c you can't trust anything online anymore! (maybe the online equivalent of the brick-and-morter I suppose)
For Google I use DuckDuckGo. Ironically AI is poised to somewhat clean up search results by putting those up top, except soon enough those will start to become monetized too, like you can have the "free" search results but if you want the AI-enhanced ones then you gotta poney up the dough, in a manner analogous to YouTube these days.
As for how all this happened, the story that I heard was that companies exploited legal loopholes wherein if they reinvested their profits into creating new ventures, they could effectively avoid paying a great deal of their taxes. Thus, like mushrooms beneath a forest, they grew and grew and grew and grew and now you cannot take one step without them lying underneath. Like how virtually the only competitor to iOS these days is Android, which at one point was an open-source project!!! They lay in wait, pretending to be a friend - maybe even thinking themselves that they were - until it was time to monetize, and then they pounced. Before YouTube, there were several other video hosting sites. But. Not. Anymore. They under-cut the competition, "donating" their profits from other enterprises into making them awesome, and now they own us, instead of the other way around. And now today, as you say, there are all these 10, 11, 12 minute videos (b/c there's an incentivization to hit that "10" mark), out of something that would have worked far better as a 1-5 sentence text paragraph, so now you have to watch 10 minutes of unsearchable video to find the same information that 30 seconds of reading would have told you far better. Don't get me wrong, SOME videos are freaking AMAZING! But most are total crap.
And... I do not know of a replacement for YouTube. Yes, I know of some other video hosting sites, some even grab YouTube videos directly, but nothing else comes even remotely close to allow a realistic comparion. e.g. Kursegat is AMAZING, and they put their videos onto YouTube, for their own monetization. I can bypass YouTube, but to watch what, not just go where?
And TV too as you said - there's very little worth watching, see e.g. Stranger Things. Oh well, we all need to work our butts off anyway, to save up for the impending apocolypse or whatever.
At one point I literally walked away from a cushy job to try and help people (thankfully I got it back when that did not pan out), and do you know what I learned? That you cannot help people who refuse to be helped. Ignorance is trivially easy to cure (by comparison) - all it takes is knowledge. Whereas obstinancy... I do not know that there is a cure. MAYBE motivation, through personal pain unlocking a willingness to consider new possibilities that comfort previously made unnecessary? If so, then there is "hope" for us after all... b/c we are all about to suffer great pain as the internet, and in the wider view the enshittification of MANY areas of life, continue to get MUCH worse.
No matter who wins the next USA election. Though not equally.
Can't answer most of your questions, rhetorical or not, but don't have much to add or argue with either. One caveat I want to make is:
Don't think that for a second. There are more now than there ever have been. The problem isn't simply that YouTube choked out all the others, it's that YouTube moved the goalposts so we wouldn't even consider the others. E.g. back in the day if you wanted videos about a very specific topic—say, you need a new phone and you want to find out if the PinePhone is right for you—you would have to go to all the video sharing sites and, if you were lucky, you would find a video or two somewhere. Nowadays you just check youtube. Youtube shifted the goalposts from "hosts videos" to "hosts videos about everything," and now people won't consider adopting alternatives unless their community just spontaneously exists, and is big enough to have everything, and also it doesn't show them people they hate, and also it has this ambiguous list of features that youtube mostly has, and also...
And who can blame them? Who wants to check 8 different websites with 8 different interfaces and 4 different apps and 2 without apps and 2 that don't work on mobile at all and partially overlapping communities and offerings and STILL risk not finding anything when checking one unified platform will guarantee you the video?
It depends on what you mean by "replacement," as I mention above. As far as I know, there are no exact replicas of "[website], but only the good parts."
Every Social Media alternative is either too small to be attractive to the people who expect a very full social experience (e.g. Lemmy instead of Reddit), or it's just recreating the same flaws again, but more subtle and insidious (e.g. Threads instead of Xitter). The problem there is that the will of the herd doesn't make smart choices, so you're either left with site that's just like the last one and doomed to recreate its downfall in a few years (because the average person likes what they already know and liked) or a site that is too forward thinking and will never have more than a few hundred thousand followers in your lifetime (assuming it can last)—a number that might seem large in a stadium or a BBS forum, but seems small on a site like facebook.
That being said, I like where the fediverse is going with services like Matrix, Mastodon and Lemmy. Maybe one day we'll see a more fb-like experience
As you said, DuckDuckGo is a fairly good search engine. Better than Google currently, sadly. I remember when it was definitely a harder choice and really required strong values. 'Nuff said.
For Amazon, I like using Ebay, Etsy and specialized online stores. Brick-and-mortar is only necessary if it's groceries or not a large chain (which all have websites anyway). The trade-off is the guarantees: some baseline of quality, and a definite refund when you get scammed. Hasn't been an issue for me yet, but I make it a point to not buy online if I can try in-store.
Yahoo and Youtube: not really. As aforementioned I don't use one, and I too am suckered into the pretty multicolored void of the other.
TV and streaming: cough [email protected] cough (follow the checklists in the megathread first)
I would consider going to https://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show when Jon Stewart returns (that man has such grace and class, nobody since comes close), if they offer full-episode videos within a week of airing whereas YouTube does not. My point here is that there needs to be a REASON to go somewhere. YouTube combined both the "video hosting" and also "content aggregation" components, so even if we replace the former - and yes, some of us really WOULD choose to go to 8 different websites, for 8 different pieces of content that are worthwhile - it would get that much harder for someone to even know that the videos on the other places exist.
On top of that, when you just happen to be on YouTube, it suggests something that you might want to watch - a related video, e.g. George Carlin perhaps - and you can enjoy watching that. Whereas 8 different websites are going to have at most 1/8th of the content, and probably several orders of magnitude less than that realistically. So as long as the ads are not TOO burdensome - let's say limited to 5s each and at most 2 of them - they will "win".
Also, I really do want Jon Stewart to get credit for my having watched one of his videos, yet watching the identical video from like Vanced or Piped or something deprives him of those tracking metrics, which are worth a lot more than mere money (which at this point he'd likely just donate to charity or some such).
YouTube wormed their way into our hearts, like an abusive spouse, and now just dares us to divorce them - they push the edge as far as they possibly can, knowing that we hate them now yet not caring one bit, unless enough of us will ACTUALLY go. At which point they'll lawyer or buy out the other place that we would go to, in an effort to drag us back in, kicking and screaming. It's a horribly abusive model for a "relationship", where our consent really doesn't matter at all, only what they can get away with, by any means necessary. And the sad fact is that many of us have greatly reduced the amount that we watch such videos entirely, but that makes next to no impact on them at all. So long as they can sell US as the product to advertising companies by being "THE" place to put their ads, they will continue their parasitic chokehold on our society.
I like Lemmy too - it is not even trying to replicate other social media sites (well, it is but it cannot succeed, so we accept that about it), and while it has enormous technical hurdles, e.g. every single time I visit my instance in via a browser, whether desktop or mobile, I have to re-login again, and sometimes (rarely) even while browsing internally. That's... not ideal, though it's still a million times better than the toxic filth crowd that is Reddit (having more to do with culture than technology ofc, and yet the two are not entirely unconnected). Whereas other places, such as Mastodon, just seem doomed internally b/c by their very nature "everyone else" has to go there too or it just won't work. Otherwise, you still need like a Xitter account to follow them, and a Facebook account to follow them, and so on (I actually do not have either, but I understand that some people will feel the need to).
Buying in brick-and-morter is facilitated by having a car, even in a city, otherwise it gets really rough trying to go without that, especially for even the smallest furniture items like a chair that you'd basically have to pay for delivery. It can be done, but does get difficult.
Back to YouTube though, yeah you go where you can find the goods. I haven't used torrents for almost a decade, ever since getting a letter from my ISP about usage of those tracked ports. Fortunately streaming - yes I literally have a Netflix account, plus the occasional whatever - covers so very much ground, if not all, and for the tiniest fraction of the amount of effort involved in keeping up with things e.g. setting up and paying for a proxy. It's literally as easy as searching for 1-2-3!:-P
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
SOME videos
total crap
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.