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.
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.