Players: How does the writing in a videogame affect your overall enjoyment? Has anything ever made you quit a game - unclear wording, poor translation/localisation, inconsistencies, typos?
@PiecesOfKate The writing can absolutely make or break a game for me. For instance, I despise Bungie's monetization practices with the last few expansions of Destiny 2, however I keep giving them my money in spite of that, because I love the writing of the game and I'm invested in that story.
On the flip side, I love the tactics-style gameplay of Fire Emblem, but didn't even make it to the time-skip in Three Houses because all the character dialogue was so terrible that I couldn't stand playing it any further and never got to experience the full game.
Sports Illustrated has apparently been publishing AI-generated articles by “authors” who don’t exist beyond their AI-generated photos. This is a much bigger problem than most people realize, and the implications are quite dire — consider, for example, that the same thing is happening in medical and scientific journals (it is). #AI#disinformation#media#socialmedia
It’s incredibly dangerous how the richest man in the world — deluded by paranoia, narcissism, and far-right conspiracies — can get arms of the state to go after his perceived enemies instead of holding him to account as they should be doing.
@stargazer That's not how it would work. You can't just inject ads into ActivityPub. Unless you're explicitly following a Threads account that posts ads, you won't see ads.
@stargazer Federation wouldn't allow Meta be able to harvest any more data on your Fediverse accounts than they already are. Most of your account details on the Fediverse, by nature of the way federation works, is already publicly-accessible across a multitude of platforms. Meta federating Threads into the network doesn't grant them any new access that they don't already have.
@stargazer Again, not how federation works. Meta gains nothing they can't already scrape as it is. Unless you make an account on their instance, there is literally no difference.
This is the latest #youtube "innovation". #Google with a market cap of $1.7 trillion and $120 billion cash on hand, "needs" to charge for ads on YouTube.
This is, of course, not true. They have more than enough revenue to run YouTube without ads in perpetuity, but they want to please shareholders. The #Peertube community is showing how you can distribute the costs of hosting content as well. If you don't support Google's continued monetization of monopolized video...vote with your feet.
@tilvids Bad take, imo. YouTube already ran at a net loss for about a decade before ever having a profitable quarter. Video hosting is an incredibly expensive endeavor, especially for an enormous platform like YouTube which allows users to upload nearly unlimited video data at no upfront cost. Just because Google has a lot of money doesn't mean that they can sustain a massive platform like YouTube at a loss forever, nor should they have any obligation to do so.
If anything, the poor playback quality, long buffer times, and lack of moderation and copyright enforcement on PeerTube are excellent examples of why cheap video hosting doesn't work, even at the much smaller scale that PeerTube operates within. I think what you want is a smaller-scaled platform, which PeerTube is good for. But that's not the type of product YouTube is, nor should they aim to be.
The reason YouTube is so expensive to run is because of its centralized nature.
I think it has more to do with maintaining a massive CDN with hundreds of server farms caching content for a worldwide userbase so that users can watch a video that was uploaded on the other side of the planet without having to buffer. Plus maintaining their social features, extended editing tools, notification services, paying moderators, handing copyright claim issues, etc.
Sometimes there's actually more to the story than just "corpo bad".
Your instance also has like 1% of the functionality that YouTube does. No immediate user registration, no integration into third-party platforms, no TOS, no copyright enforcement, no auto-captioning, no playlist support, no support for "shorts"/"stories"-formatted content, no interactive functions like in-video cards, no rental/purchase options, no partnerships with studios and other rights holders, limited livestreaming options... etc. The list goes on.
Not saying any of this to try to dunk on TILVids or PeerTube in general, just saying that we're talking about two wildly different product types, which cater to two wildly different audiences. YouTube is providing an order of magnitude more features and functionality to their platform than what PeerTube is currently capable of. The business models that work for PeerTube aren't really comparable.The SOPs that work for your platform are nigh impossible to work for YouTube. It's like the difference between a local crokinole tourament compared to the NFL.
Not suggesting it is, at all! Honestly, it's a bit of a relief to see smaller-scaled services that don't try to be all-encompassing. But the standards for one method of building a platform don't really apply to another very well.
To the best of my knowledge, Google doesn't publish this data publicly. But many estimates fall within $2-5b/year in operational costs. Considering storage for exabytes of data mirrored across dozens of server farms, bandwidth, licensing, creator payouts, employee/contractor salaries, leases/maintenance on buildings and other infrastructure, legal costs, etc... I'd wager that the cost is even a bit higher than those estimates.
Could be. Like I said, they don't publish the exact data, so all we can go off of are estimates from others in the industry. Could be more, could be less.
Doesn't change much in this context, though. Google has little obligation to make their products available for free. Yet YouTube is still largely a free-to-use platform, anyway.
And, ironically, "free" still comes at a cost, being your time and your data.
This has got to be the vaguest kind. The guys running this corner of the fediverse have better internet access than me, may have 5x better PCs than me and have the power to check my account several times, and still ban me for this.
I hope they review this a hundred times again. I mean, look at the gap of my comments'/posts' date there...I only sparingly use the upvote and downvote there, based off my feelings on certain posts or comments. (And here I thought they will not copycat the orange app's voting system...)
If they have decided to keep this decision forever, I hope #Kbin will be kind to me...
@asunaspersonalasst Are you using a shared connection with any other users, or perhaps a VPN? I'd wager that they found an IP match with another account that was upvoting/downvoting content, as that usually throws up red flags in most moderator tools (though I don't know what kind of tools LW has in this regard).