Facebook, intentionally or not, gets to control part of YouTube's fate and relevance. It has every right to, but that's a bit scary when it's the only way to share a video with my friends.
Facebook, intentionally or not, gets to control part of YouTube's fate and relevance. It has every right to, but that's a bit scary when it's the only way to share a video with my friends.
Then there's google images, which shows the images on the google site itself (a vast copyright infringement, unlike the search engine result pages these are copies of the images at quite high resolution).
Every web company, as soon as they get large enough will stop playing nice and will start trying to lock their users into their own ecosystem.
Well, image search would be a lot less useful if it didn't show images. And Google's image thumbnails are very modest resolution copies. The larger image previews displayed when clicking a specific image result are actually hotlinked from the original source, and hence not copyright violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_linking#Copyright_law_i...
So the website pays the cost without getting the benefit of a visit?
The larger image preview is still moderately sized (it loads the original image but in a smaller frame), so most users probably click through to the original page (since most users aren't savvy enough to right-click and go to the image directly, or mouse over to the "view image" button).
I think you hit something here... Why is this happening? Over and over again? Like a broken record. It is deep roooted, survival instincts which are acquired unconsciously because of the medium you're born and living in. Can this be changed? So future (web) company wil not be like this? Is anyone reflecting on this? Working on this? It is one's resp/job/passion to do this? I would love to know, help.