However, I did try their YT Premium, for a while, and was incredibly disappointed in their UI.

I assume that the Premium UI was designed for people that use their free tier, but is very strange, to folks like me, who come from other paid services.

But I am likely not their target audience. I suppose that YT Premium does well.

Why?

Serious question, too. You can sideload clients that give you every single feature of YouTube Premium for free. Unless you're expressly lazy, like being taken advantage of or enjoy watching advertisements, there's really no excuse. YouTube Premium is the "I'm trapped in this place and you people have finally gotten me" fee - you can circument it all together by just, not using YouTube's software. Newpipe is must-have on Android, I'm certain something similar exists for iOS. I run SmartTube on my dirt-cheap Amazon FireTV and don't get a single ad when browsing. Subtotal is $0.00 for the installation and usage of Open Source software.

I use YouTube a lot, but between uBlock Origin and SponsorBlock (which I set-and-forget like 4 years ago) I don't have a single gripe with the experience. I hear people contemplate paying YouTube for a worse experience and it gives me hives. The content is on a server; you are making yourself miserable by acquiescing to a harmful client. Paying for YouTube Premium is your eternal reward for submission to the Walled Garden.

In that weird era, (a) average home Internet connections became fast enough to support streaming video (with a healthy adoption growth rate), (b) the most widely deployed home recording device was likely still the VCR (digitizing analog video from cable to burn to DVD was a pain), (c) there was no "on demand" anything, as most media flowed over centrally-programmed cable or broadcast subscriptions, and (d) people capturing video on mobile devices was rare (first gen iPhone couldn't) but obviously a future growth area.

So early YouTube was literally unlike anything that came before -- watch a thing you want, whenever you want.

Sadly, the copyright cartel swiftly attacked and all the regular people lost their rights. It seems like the lesson learned is that the copyright-owning corporations can't be trusted to play fairly or meet in the middle on fair use. We really need to just abolish copyright laws entirely.

Why on Earth would you want shorter videos? The best thing about YouTube is that it's one of the only places you can find quality medium-to-long-form content.

The personal side typically will center on emotional aspects of being human. However what you do with your intellect is also a major part of being human. And that part is most often expressed only in our professional lives.

Celebrating a job well done and an outsized impact is a good thing - and if I may, the most "human" of things to do?

RIP.

Any time someone posts a YouTube link to a political discussion, it’s guaranteed to be the worst nonsense that pries on people who “do their own research.” (No matter if they’re left or right on the political spectrum, there’s endless junk on YouTube for both.)

There’s surely good stuff on YouTube, but as a parent I honestly wouldn’t miss it if it disappeared overnight.

Also, just as an example, YouTube demonetises (and therefore effectively punishes) you for using words like ‘suicide’ so now we have to say silly things like ‘unalive’ — at least until Google/the advertisers catch on. These days YouTube is more censored than traditional TV.

Covid vax concerns were allowed during the last months of the Trump administration, but it suddenly became censored after Biden was elected.

Xanax as a party drug is just strange in general.

Daily adderal RX for ADHD or studying. Coke at night to party. Xanax at end of night to come down from the uppers and try to sleep. That mix is pretty common.

They hold that none of us can ever be good enough for God's standards. That's why Jesus' atoning sacrifice is such a big deal.

So pick the person you hold in highest regard, and they're still too sinful to merit eternal life. And pick the worst person you can imagine, and Jesus' sacrifice is enough to cover them too.

I've taken basically all vaccines ever recommended while growing up and traveling, but to say that the covid vaccine was "safe and effective" a year after coming out was a crazy stretch. Why couldn't they just say "we didn't have time to do long term studies, but we think it's fine and worth the risks"? But to say it's safe was a lie IMO and lost the vaccine side a lot of credibility.

I certainly wouldn't mind reading some personal eulogies about what a great mentor her was etc., or about how she influenced your life with her work even if you didn't know her.

But I also don't mind reading critical posts about the role she played, I think that's part of the picture for someone who's famous as a business leader. If people weren't willing to speak freely about the dead, we wouldn't have had the Nobel prizes.

YouTube has videos on the dangers of GMO crops, despite the scientific consensus for their safety and utility.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8959534/#cit000...

YouTube has plenty of videos about electromagnetic sensitivity about which the WHO says: “EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to EMF exposure.”

https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-hea...

And more stupidity: “Eating these foods kills cancer”

https://youtu.be/WGbFnp56csg?si=t54Pcr3uqjrXRx9f

“12 foods that can fight and cure cancer”

https://youtu.be/FdlKCpEzSAE?si=J6rtKs6valWnamBP

Interview with Robert DeNiro 8 years about his concerns about vaccines and autism and his doubts about the vaccine effectiveness statistics.

https://youtu.be/FJ7iPn39i08?si=mRYD3a3y9HdMPMQ8

Covid censorship was political and not from some altruistic “goodness.”

And YouTube experienced very significant growth during the pandemic. So that “lovely” soul was profiting because of the lockdowns. Lockdowns that were possible due to fear and a lack of any permissible public debate — partially thanks to YouTube. Would lockdowns have ended sooner if there was more debate on the topic allowed? Definitely. What about school closures? Absolutely. But videos debating these things weren’t allowed.

So no, the game and the player in this case are one and the same. I’m not going to respect anyone that supported lockdowns or supported suppressing scientific debate. Curating opinion (and facts) while pretending to not to isn’t worthy of respect.

And, YouTube still allows those addictive kid videos where the narrator says “If you love your parents, like and subscribe. If you don’t love your parents, don’t like and subscribe.”

A better phrase may be "Don't say things that will hurt the feelings of those who are grieving," but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily.

We are but most folks here basically know nothing of her deeds, or really anything about her. They see one piece of a thing she was a face of for some time period, and that they also knew mostly nothing about, but appear to love to have strong opinions on!

If you want to speak of her deeds then go and learn about them. Otherwise, people aren't speaking of anything other than some small myopic view of a human being they knew nothing about. Folks don't get to say that she is defined by the small piece of stuff they saw, just because they want to have an opinion on it.

Besides being disrespectful, it's not even interesting, and it says more about the people doing it than the person they are talking about.

It's like saying you are defined by the small and short interactions you had with grocery store cashiers who happen to like to post about their experiences with you on the internet and nothing else.

unless you have a magical way to make your comment here invisible to her family and friends, posting it to the internet is not keeping the comment exclusively "between unrelated people." Many of those replies to Pichai are vile.

We've had many such incidents over the recent years and at least in my anecdotal observations, people do not consistently apply this.

With a dead person, I think this logic holds to an even higher degree. Personally I'm not really sure whether I agree or disagree with it, but it seems pretty reasonable, especially if we don't hyperbolically immediately leap to absurdly extreme examples like Hitler or whatever.

If they're rich and powerful who cares... here's John Oliver's reaction to Kissinger dying [0]... tl;dr "not soon enough"

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HmrJmq7d1c

https://med.stanford.edu/survivingcancer/cancer-and-stress/s....

Jake died yesterday. I don’t even think he was 40 years old.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41201555

Susan was only 56.

Let’s at least give everyone a chance at a full life.

Big endian

Money does buy comfort and care. Also, it does not make one immortal.

We can choose what we take away from events. I could choose to feel unlucky that I haven't made as much money as someone else, and I would be justified in it, because being rich absolutely makes a difference. I just choose to feel lucky to be alive instead, and I'm just as justified. You are free to choose your own perspective.

So out of touch when billions live in poverty but imagine telling them, “remember have fun money doesn’t matter” when they can’t even have basic clean water or clothes

"Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge." -James 4:11 (KJV)

To answer your question and speak to the subject matter in the most mundane and academic sense possible, it was focusing in on YT's having become well-known for its level of having turned to political correctness (part and parcel of advertiser friendliness perhaps) in the form of changes in community standards, terms of service, and anti-mis-and-disinfo policies seen by strict free-speech advocates (and some other groups) as especially onerous and undesirable. Officially, the privately owned [but publicly traded] company can do that, and the matter even was decided upon by the United States Supreme Court recently. Although, it is also officially the case that much of this kind of selective information permissibility was indeed government-suggested, which does raise more questions about kosherness. Further, what could potentially be seen as the recursive externalization and deferral of responsibility (arguably for political, social, or economic reasons) rather than acknowledging and taking on hard tasks is a related moral issue (requiring tremendous courage given the scenario, and perhaps an academic rigor and breadth and depth of capacity not commonly found anywhere, anyway). These are the unsavory matters that many ivory armchair critics of the past, present, and future may sadly think of regarding the past several years of YT in particular (though really many observers were acutely aware of them over the last 10 years or so as a progression), and naturally a topmost corporate face is seen as having been some kind of responsible decision-maker (regardless of the truth of the matter).

Instead, those critics could be making better technological and sociological solutions, and educating, and admitting that people are imperfect and can all do their best. Instead of criticizing others.

There is always Kick and Rumble if you did not like it.

    > Accidental self inflicted injury