Breadtubers who aggregate and present unified information is still legitimate content creation. People dont want to watch multiple 2hour long documentaries and read 10 articles. So if a breadtuber does that and condenses that into a 30min video, good for them. Improving citation is a legitimate point but ultimately not that important for most people.
It’s not condensing when it’s a) copying verbatim and b) not citing sources.
It’s not an issue citation needing to be improved. It needs to exist at all. And the audience’s opinion on whether citation is important to them is a total non-issue. Their opinions don’t matter in this regard.
You cite sources and give credit, or you don’t publish.
Saying that a person’s labor shouldn’t be valued, and that others should be able to steal your labor without consequence, is an interesting take for a communist.
Well despite their recent claim that they watched it (which ironically came in a 4 hour length text wall response), it seems the point was handily missed, intentionally or otherwise.
I did watch it and it could have been condensed to 5minutes.
Youtubers copy paste articles, videos and wikipedia. Should youtubers be held at a normal societal standard for copyright? He didnt have to go to all that detail about every single copypasted sentence that a random youtuber included in their video.
And even in the end he says that he is fine with youtubers making videos of copypasting articles/wikipedia/other languages, because that makes that knowledge more accessible. So his only issue is with citation. And i would argue that an extensive citation would break the flow of a video, so i would be fine with a disclaimer saying “most of this content is copypasted or inspired from other sources, i am not intelligent”. Would he be ok with that? Is this about ego?
Ultimately, noone has any original thought. We are all products of our environment. If i make a video about any subject, even if i dont literally copypaste something, what i will be saying is probably something that i read before. Even if i include some of my “own” ideas and opinions, those ideas and opinions are shaped by other people in the past.
Humans are no different than chatgpt. We regurgitate previous input. Ultimately individuals are irrelevant, what matters is ideas and their spread. But since we live in an individualistic, capitalistic society, people go crazy over copyright. Who cares. Does any of the viewers of these videos really care whether the creator of the video is presenting “original” thought or copypasting a wikipedia article? I dont. I am just happy to be exposed to the information.
Breadtubers who aggregate and present unified information is still legitimate content creation. People dont want to watch multiple 2hour long documentaries and read 10 articles. So if a breadtuber does that and condenses that into a 30min video, good for them. Improving citation is a legitimate point but ultimately not that important for most people.
It’s not condensing when it’s a) copying verbatim and b) not citing sources.
It’s not an issue citation needing to be improved. It needs to exist at all. And the audience’s opinion on whether citation is important to them is a total non-issue. Their opinions don’t matter in this regard.
You cite sources and give credit, or you don’t publish.
why?
Saying that a person’s labor shouldn’t be valued, and that others should be able to steal your labor without consequence, is an interesting take for a communist.
copying isn’t stealing
no one is saying their labor shouldn’t be valued.
This point was brought up at the end of the video. You just need to watch it.
And I have nothing against that, as long as they are not trying to get me to believe that they did all the work themselves
Did you really watch all the incredibly flagrant horseshit in this video and come away with that?
probably they didn’t watch it if they are complaining about watching 2hour long documentaries, he probably needs a breadtuber to condense it for him
Well despite their recent claim that they watched it (which ironically came in a 4 hour length text wall response), it seems the point was handily missed, intentionally or otherwise.
I did watch it and it could have been condensed to 5minutes.
Youtubers copy paste articles, videos and wikipedia. Should youtubers be held at a normal societal standard for copyright? He didnt have to go to all that detail about every single copypasted sentence that a random youtuber included in their video.
And even in the end he says that he is fine with youtubers making videos of copypasting articles/wikipedia/other languages, because that makes that knowledge more accessible. So his only issue is with citation. And i would argue that an extensive citation would break the flow of a video, so i would be fine with a disclaimer saying “most of this content is copypasted or inspired from other sources, i am not intelligent”. Would he be ok with that? Is this about ego?
Ultimately, noone has any original thought. We are all products of our environment. If i make a video about any subject, even if i dont literally copypaste something, what i will be saying is probably something that i read before. Even if i include some of my “own” ideas and opinions, those ideas and opinions are shaped by other people in the past.
Humans are no different than chatgpt. We regurgitate previous input. Ultimately individuals are irrelevant, what matters is ideas and their spread. But since we live in an individualistic, capitalistic society, people go crazy over copyright. Who cares. Does any of the viewers of these videos really care whether the creator of the video is presenting “original” thought or copypasting a wikipedia article? I dont. I am just happy to be exposed to the information.
finally, a sane voice in this thread.