"It's important that you behave in a manner consistent with what you
endorse"
I don't see any reason why it's not perfectly possible to agree on some
points of a speech and disagree on others;
I think that it's legit to publish a video on youtube in order to steer
people away from youtube - just as legit as writing free software for a
proprietary operating system so people can easier make the transition.
On youtube, all kinds of media appear from completely unknown sources.
*nobody* is wondering why this video has been uploaded though stallman
requests not to do so;
sure it has been uploaded by some random dude who doesn't care.
If they watch it on youtube, chances are good that they understand the
message. If they don't watch it at all, chances are zero.
"
You seem to be arguing from convenience"
Clearly not; in this context, this term makes no sense whatsoever.
Talking about convenience would be: "It is easier for me to upload the video
on youtube; all the other alternatives make this process less convenient".
What i'm talking about is impact; there's no point in uploading speeches if
nobody will ever see them. The goal is to free as many people as possible -
did you forget?
"I think people will get to the video by receiving a link to that video"
Well, that's some statement - of course they will get to the video by
receiving a link, but how will they GET this link?
On some unpopular sites, they won't at all.
"But the FSF would seriously
undermine their own work tacitly endorsing Facebook if they chose to
host something there."
That's a false analogy: I never proposed that the fsf should create an
account on youtube and upload the video officially.
