LocalSend. It’s exactly like Apple Airdrop

This may be super-nitpicky (and I lose LocalSend and use it a lot), but there is one difference between LocalSend and Airdrop. LocalSend requires network connectivity (and requires the devices to be on the same network), whereas Airdrop can work without any network connection (using Bluetooth).

Something something broken arms

Edit: Wow, thank you for the gold, kind stranger!

If the article had been about that, that would have been an interesting article.

(No hate on the FUTO team. It's their hard work and livelihood and if that's the licence they want, that's fine. This is just my personal opinion.)

If they're just trying to avoid a NewPipe situation, the licence is more heavy-handed than it has to be. NewPipe is GPLv3, which has provisions in it for preventing forks from using certain names or logos or identifying marks. The NewPipe team chose not to (or neglected to) use those specific provisions in the GPL. But it's perfectly within their right to add to the licence information "You are not allowed to use the words 'new' or 'pipe' or use the letter P stylized as a triangle in a logo. The GPL makes a provision for these sorts of restrictions to automatically void the licence even for the case where none of those things are legally trademarked. (I'm not a lawyer and it's probably an open question as to how a court would enforce that clause, but my suspicion is it's probably enough to get Google to suspend violators from the Play Store at the very least. Probably you'd want to go to the trouble of trademarking them to be safe)

I unironically cannot use Photoshop. I grew up with GIMP and the Photoshop UI is completely alien and confusing for me, so I have no choice but to retreat into the safe warm UI of GIMP.

That would be a "technical merit", which the article author claims is irrelevant to the discussion.

Indeed. Licensing usage of something is antithetical to free software culture anyway. It would violate the Free Software Foundation's Freedom Zero, that you should never have to accept a licence to use something. (This is why free software cannot ever have a EULA, for instance)

True as long as they keep an ad-free tier.

The Russian trolls are leaving! That's good.

The AI trolls are coming! That's bad.

\except $for $the $annoying $syntax $and $bad $function $naming, $it's $actually $turned $into $a $fairly $decent $language->

I hate when people use passive voice in these things. It's such a slimy way to try and avoid responsibility.

"We have blocked you from using a mobile browser." is the active voice. It includes a subject ("we") and a verb ("blocked"). It says that someone made a decision, executed that decision, and is responsible.

"It looks like ... ", " ... is currently unavailable" is so fucking weaselly and irresponsible. You are 100% a complete piece of shit if you ever say something like that. You are not responsible enough to handle a Wendy's drive-through order, let alone a large organization.

Are you thinking of it as a centralized replacement to YouTube? If you're centralized, yeah, you probably need a data centre the size of Malta. There are decentralized alternatives (like PeerTube) where the cost is also distributed. If you're using PeerTube, you literally can "just throw it on a cheap VPS", and lots of people do, with no problems.

I think the real reason decentralized video isn't going to catch on is because video (and YouTube in particular) has not been a community thing for many years now. There are very few YouTubers who make videos to build a community or connect to a community. YouTubers are on there for money, and there's really no alternative that can both host the videos and pay out big cheques to content creators.