[email protected] wrote:
Yeah, and those are exactly the users that don't know about the issue and have to be informed about it - precisely the right audience. It's important that people don't *have to* use non-free software in order to watch the video, and that it's available in an free format.
Not having to use nonfree software isn't good enough here. I'll assume Stallman gave his usual clear and sensible request at the start of his talk by saying something to the effect of "please don't host this video on YouTube" along with an explanation of why he does not want copies of his talks hosted there.
When those who claim to endorse his message don't choose to follow his request, viewers are naturally confused -- they're watching a copy of the video hosted on a site he said he didn't want posted there. So if those who ostensibly favor Free Software can't or won't follow his justifiable request, nobody else watching that video on YouTube has reason to take Stallman seriously.
It's important that you behave in a manner consistent with what you endorse or else you undermine your own endorsement effort. Your own actions serve as a clear instruction that you can get what you want in this instance (online video) hosted in a practical way that meets with your ethics and the speaker's request.
Why not just bury them in the garden? Do you honestly think anybody who needs to be taught about the issues of non-free software is looking for videos at archive.org?
I think people will get to the video by receiving a link to that video, which means one could just as easily link to a copy hosted at archive.org or hosted on their own website. Either link can easily point to a copy of the video in a format that favors Free Software instead of using Google's service. And there's no need to choose just one source for the video.
You seem to be arguing from convenience; it was more convenient for someone to upload the video to YouTube, and here you're trying to justify that choice by saying that's where other users look. Such argument reinforces the behavior you say is bad which creates confusion. You can avoid this confusion by behaving in line with what you say people need to be taught.
People need to be taught that Facebook is a monstrous surveillance engine. Yet Facebook is quite popular. Facebook would be a far less monstrous service if it were less popular. But the FSF would seriously undermine their own work tacitly endorsing Facebook if they chose to host something there. So instead the FSF publishes https://www.fsf.org/facebook explaining why "You won't find me on Facebook".
YouTube can and should be avoided. People had to learn to use it and therefore people can learn to use something else that treats them better and they can learn why they should not use websites that treat them badly. If they're not bold enough to do the right thing on their own, they need examples of good behavior to serve as a model for their own behavior which means seeing people point to copies of videos in formats favoring Free Software hosted on sites such as archive.org and many other individual user's websites. So while you can't control what other people choose, you can control what you choose and I urge you to not choose to host videos at YouTube or endorse such videos.
