Before I even clicked it I knew there would be no real journalism involved. It’s just parroting the video the LegalEagle put out, so if you’d rather give your click to the creator, just watch the Youtube video, and don’t bother with the techcrunch “article”.
This article credits Legal Eagle, embeds the original, is much shorter to read than an 8-minute video and doesn’t require me to wear headphones. Lemmy is a text based social media so it makes sense to favour text sources. Definitely better than linking to some overloaded Invidious instance which seems to be the norm.
There’s plenty of core social components to Lemmy. It’s a platform for self-organising communities that curate, rank and discuss content. Without that I’d be using RSS reader only.
There’s plenty of core social components to Lemmy.
Nothing requires the social components of lemmy to be text only though. Many images, gifs, and videos are shared in comment sections as well. Claiming text only or text-based is incorrect when all media types are available in every facet of lemmy.
Edit: I will add, I do appreciate a text source though… I can get through pages of text faster than I can watch a youtube video at 2x speed. But there are times where the imagery help to clear up some topics as well.
It’s a spectrum like most things but to give some extreme examples - Lemmy can work without embedding media files but it can’t work without text. Instagram could work with just video, ability to scroll and a like button.
In an story about stealing money from creators, you’d rather read an article that just plagiarizes the source material for clicks and ad revenue than go to the actual source? If this article added literally anything to the video I could support it, but it’s just the video in text format. If you don’t have 8 minutes to watch a video, fine, but consider that the whole Honey thing is basically the same thing as this article. What do you think the click through rate on the video is? How many people won’t watch the video now that they’ve read the article?
I’m not contesting the legality of what TechCrunch an other modern web article farms do. It’s all legal. The problem is that even if it is legal, it’s fucking people over. Plagiarizing a YouTube video by taking the closed captions and copy/pasting them onto your site with an attribution link is fucking cunt behavior, and the death of modern journalism. Legal? Yep, it sure is. Morally reprehensible? Definitely.
If YouTube videos are what “modern journalism” has to offer, modern journalism is trash.
I have absolutely zero interest in watching an eight minute video to gain what I could have read in two minutes.
I don’t need to see anybody 's face or hear any stupid music or, even worse, watch them talk over another video as they present the information. 90% of what these people do would be more effective presented textually, and the rest is ads, vamping, and narcissism.
YouTube is great for spreading misinformation and propaganda, and wasting people’s time. Let’s move on.
Before I even clicked it I knew there would be no real journalism involved. It’s just parroting the video the LegalEagle put out, so if you’d rather give your click to the creator, just watch the Youtube video, and don’t bother with the techcrunch “article”.
This article credits Legal Eagle, embeds the original, is much shorter to read than an 8-minute video and doesn’t require me to wear headphones. Lemmy is a text based social media so it makes sense to favour text sources. Definitely better than linking to some overloaded Invidious instance which seems to be the norm.
No it is not. It is a link aggregator. Can be text, can be images, can be video, can be news, etc. etc.
There’s plenty of core social components to Lemmy. It’s a platform for self-organising communities that curate, rank and discuss content. Without that I’d be using RSS reader only.
Nothing requires the social components of lemmy to be text only though. Many images, gifs, and videos are shared in comment sections as well. Claiming text only or text-based is incorrect when all media types are available in every facet of lemmy.
Edit: I will add, I do appreciate a text source though… I can get through pages of text faster than I can watch a youtube video at 2x speed. But there are times where the imagery help to clear up some topics as well.
It’s a spectrum like most things but to give some extreme examples - Lemmy can work without embedding media files but it can’t work without text. Instagram could work with just video, ability to scroll and a like button.
I don’t understand what any of that has to do with what you or I said.
In an story about stealing money from creators, you’d rather read an article that just plagiarizes the source material for clicks and ad revenue than go to the actual source? If this article added literally anything to the video I could support it, but it’s just the video in text format. If you don’t have 8 minutes to watch a video, fine, but consider that the whole Honey thing is basically the same thing as this article. What do you think the click through rate on the video is? How many people won’t watch the video now that they’ve read the article?
I don’t like watching videos.
Me either, and Im glad for text summaries.
I believe in the right to quote which is also the law in most of the world because of Berne Convention.
I’m not contesting the legality of what TechCrunch an other modern web article farms do. It’s all legal. The problem is that even if it is legal, it’s fucking people over. Plagiarizing a YouTube video by taking the closed captions and copy/pasting them onto your site with an attribution link is fucking cunt behavior, and the death of modern journalism. Legal? Yep, it sure is. Morally reprehensible? Definitely.
If YouTube videos are what “modern journalism” has to offer, modern journalism is trash.
I have absolutely zero interest in watching an eight minute video to gain what I could have read in two minutes.
I don’t need to see anybody 's face or hear any stupid music or, even worse, watch them talk over another video as they present the information. 90% of what these people do would be more effective presented textually, and the rest is ads, vamping, and narcissism.
YouTube is great for spreading misinformation and propaganda, and wasting people’s time. Let’s move on.
You’re so angry lol. Just don’t watch it jeez.
Exhausting. Like the people who used to yell at us for using straws. Your anger is misplaced at individuals.
If you live your life shirking all your personal responsibility and pushing the blame onto corporations, you are part of the problem.
“People who disagree with me are my political enemies!”
Man up and admit maybe your point of view could need perspective before you go whining that you are being persecuted.