PSA on privuhcy
-
You don't think the link I give helps potential viewers by showing there is content out there?
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not exactly a vibrant community it's basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
-
Well no because pretty much all of the content on there is provided by you. Don't get me wrong there's nothing wrong with it, but it's not exactly a vibrant community it's basically you uploading content and that is it.
If this service is supposed to replace YouTube it needs lots of content.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's not a "community" it's a video server. I'm sharing video content I made.
I could open up the federation aspect and letting you and others comment, helping it to scale, but for now I chose not to.
There are PeerTube instances doing that though, i.e. federating, allowing comments from the instance, other instances, also content that is paid for. My instance though again is not like that.
I find it surprising that someone on Lemmy makes assumption about centralization and consequently homogenization. My instance does NOT try to reproduce YouTube yet I believe, I hope at least, does provide again potential "content" to viewers. It's never going to be YouTube but for me that's OK, in fact I would argue, that's better.
Edit: initial comment made no reference to a "community" FWIW.
-
Don't some browsers do this automatically?
I would assume there's an extendion/add-on for than already
-
This post did not contain any content.
No no no no, keep em up, I can hack them and decrypt and do nasty things with that silly part of
codelink, to learn so much about our lovely friendship. And I promise I would never use that to harm You, really! hahahahahahahahaa -
No no no no, keep em up, I can hack them and decrypt and do nasty things with that silly part of
codelink, to learn so much about our lovely friendship. And I promise I would never use that to harm You, really! hahahahahahahahaaOh source from newsletters? emails? oh that means You actively are using email adres, do any big spam company want validated email adres they can spam on? yeah, sure, 0.30€ each! (afaik, black market value is 100-600€ per 1000 valid addresses, just searched)
Tbh, unsure if si=Aa1Uc_fRHXC0ay85 or similars can be decrypted, or are just individual, one time identificators, never tried, but bet some do know how to pull value out of them.
-
I would assume there's an extendion/add-on for than already
Yes, at least for Firefox:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Telling people to remove them isn’t very practical. Educating people is step 1, but step 2 is finding a browser extension or browser that scrubs the identifiers from URLs. You will inevitably forget to remove the tracker from the url if you do it manually.
-
There are many URLs that require parameters to load a resource (and aren’t necessarily tracking anything). With YouTube’s non-shortened links (for example), the video ID is after the
?, but is usually (but not always) immediately after.This:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQCan be shortened to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQBut no shorter.
(actually, you can remove the
www.but that’s not relevant for illustrating my point)LOL: thank you Voyager or Lemmy.world for stripping it even from my inline code.
Here’s what I was trying to post:
But no shorter
-
But no shorter
yes, YouTube has shorter URL schemes, but given the scheme I was showing, the part after the
?can’t be removed -
yes, YouTube has shorter URL schemes, but given the scheme I was showing, the part after the
?can’t be removedI know, I was joking
-
I know, I was joking
/c/whoosh
