I'm saying if you provide a service you can't support, stop and make room for someone else to try.
Of course they'd rather provide abusive service to hold on to user-share. That's a choice they're making and I'm saying that's a bad choice, socially speaking. Good business choice, I'm sure.
If Google'd rather do that than not harm users with no human recourse unless you get the media involved, yes, that would be a more ethical choice than what they're doing now. They could also just stop being bad at the role they've elected to take on, in the first place.
Comments
Are you saying that we should kick all the poor people off of Youtube?
I'm saying if you provide a service you can't support, stop and make room for someone else to try.
Of course they'd rather provide abusive service to hold on to user-share. That's a choice they're making and I'm saying that's a bad choice, socially speaking. Good business choice, I'm sure.
In other words, kick everybody off of Youtube.
If Google'd rather do that than not harm users with no human recourse unless you get the media involved, yes, that would be a more ethical choice than what they're doing now. They could also just stop being bad at the role they've elected to take on, in the first place.