That's a DMCA nightmare.

Actually the DMCA has safe harbor available for system caches - 17 USC 512(b).

A distributed cache can be within the safe harbor.

Google ought to know about that one

17 USC 512(b)(1). See Parker v Google (ED Pa 2006) 422 F Supp 2d 492, 497, aff'd (3d Cir 2007) 242 Fed Appx 833, cert denied (2008) 552 US 1156 (defendant, Google, entitled to safe harbor for automatic caching of web pages for indexing purposes);

Field v Google, Inc. (D Nev 2006) 412 F Supp 2d 1106 ("cached" links to plaintiff's copyrighted works held to be fair use; defendant entitled to protection of system caching safe harbor).

and getting no ad-views and no paid revenue from you is the worst-case-scenario

That is not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is I leave Youtube and take with them at least a portion of All my friends (over time) who were not bothering with Ad Blockers anyways.

This means that while me leaving saves them a tiny bit of money on network resources; It actually causes a negative network effect across their whole userbase which reduces their total number of views from people who might have considered paying for Premium or who were not even thinking of the option of Ad blockers.

Your value to a social media site is Not the amount of paid revenue from you.

It's the amount of paid revenue from you plus your network value which includes the value of $$ that can be earned off data learned from you, and the value that can be earned from other people you cause to use the site.

For example, Let's say the average revenue from a youtuber is "X", and the average network value of a youtuber is "P".

If I block ads and never pay Youtube anything, But I upload a video to Youtube that 1000 people come to Youtube to watch who would not have watched on Youtube before, then Youtube has zero paid revenue from me, but then my network value is 1000XP that day; that is potentially 10s of dollars immediately, and tens of thousands of dollars over time.

Ahh, but most people don't upload videos.. Well that is Okay as well, because if I watch Youtube, then I will inevitably end up sharing video links with some of my friends who are Not on Youtube, and referring others to Youtube, then my network value would average (number of users)*(number of referrals)*X*P -- this also adds up to quite a lot over time.

On the other hand If I stop watching Youtube altogether, then my Network value becomes negative, Because It means I will be actively discouraging friends from watching Youtube by referring them to other sources. Me No longer using Youtube will cause my Network Value to the website to become negative, and if it becomes large enough in the negative direction, then it will certainly exceed the hosting costs.

It does NOT cost much to display a video to one person, AND most people will not run effective Ad Blockers anyway, so it can be very detrimental for the site to mess with the few who do.

I would suggest that some kind of update be made to these apps so that on successful download they'll "cache" the video payload, and add an option to push it up to some kind of server or network that can be retrieved from as an alternate to retrieval from Youtube.

I mean: If Youtube's going to directly attack the apps, then start working together to make the video data itself available without using their servers.

That's to get something like freenet actually working.

First of all; Centralization is not the only thing stopping replacement of Youtube. Hosting and distributing large video files is expensive -- the large companies pay a huge dollar figure not only to host those files, but also for network capacity to send those files. Your average home user internet connection has a capped upstream, and even if the internet is decentralized, you aren't able to decentralize hosting of large video files.

The other trouble is Freenet may actually be too decentralized.. These types of systems are suited towards distributing Static information only.

It's decentral to the point publishers can't even have server-side scripts; everything has to be static, and even getting updates to your static documents distributed is trouble, if I recall correctly. You couldn't create a website like Slashdot on top of the freenet if you wanted to.

A server emulator for the game is reported being worked on by people within that game's community.

So a fairly high chance they'll have something before long.

Right.. The chargeback period has long passed would be a claim for the courts.

Except in 2024 all these companies lock customers into binding arbitration, And Arbitrators will Not contemplate fairness to the consumer or principles of justice If it's not what the contract says, then the arbitrators are always going to end up finding in the game publisher's favor, so it is kind of a lost cause .

For free solutions there's Matrix, but you have to host it and it requires people to create an account on each instance

Those two drawbacks are significant, but Matrix is also Missing some of Discord's most important features for gamers such as Forum channels, Threads, Voice chat, Screen sharing/Game Streaming, Emoji, and Stickers.

I would say that Matrix is more of an "Upgrade" to IRC that only really handles only the real-time chat aspect, instead of a Discord alternative.

just to browse almost any channel now seems to require you to create a discord account

EH? What are you able to browse without an account? You always needed an account registered with Discord in order to Join or view anything inside a server; private or not. Only exception would be if the server itself uses a 3rd party custom app like WidgetBot to host a display of their server on a website.

Discord is absolute garbage. Pathetic limits on file uploads compared to telegram

So are you saying Telegram is the Discord replacement?

every server feels the need to create 100 channels

Well, yeah, because not everyone on a server is interested in every topic people in the community may want to discuss.

Everyone like Discord, but i'm starting to like them less and less.

The question then is what alternatives exist to Discord that are similar, however?

IRC's UI is not great and Lacks Presence, History, Search, Emoji's, and integrated Voice chat, for example.

Discord also has a huge bot/app ecosystem. that does a lot of cool community things you couldn't do on IRC, etc

Most likely their parents are buying smartphones for them and letting their kids use them on their phone plan.

Yes.. Either that, Or the kid is working and probably driving, which you can do at Age 15 in the UK, In that case it would be inappropriate to say they can't have a cell phone. A cell phone is kind of indispensible to basic tasks in this day in age. The kids might be even in increased danger if they are not allowed to obtain that resource; as they could not use a Maps app to help them find directions, or the text message/phone functions to call for help in an emergency, if they are for some asinine reason denied access to a cell phone.

And yet, how many people who have served in the military or one of the three letter intelligence services, or administrations, or anything similar, have been prevented from telling what they know when writing a book?

If you work for those agencies and handle secret information, then you signed away your right by free choice. There are a lot of jobs where you may sign a confidentiality agreement regarding your employer's information --- that Does not mean you did not have a Free speech right, but you voluntarily waived that right in regards to your employer's information.

Nobody has to join the military, and nobody has to voluntarily waive that right, but sure, if you do so by choice, then they can forbid you from publishing secret information the public does not know which you gained access to from the government within the agreements.

True, but they do have to adhere to laws of the country they operate in. It's why Twitter censored opposition candidate posts during the Turkish elections

This is only because there is no free speech in Turkey; they do business with advertisers in Turkey; have business assets in Turkey, and don't want the Turkish government blocking access to their website. If they didn't care about those things, then Twitter could refuse to censor anything Turkey wanted, and just accept their website getting blocked -- there would be no penalty against them in the US, due to free speech.

Half the time it asks another question in response and then lights up waiting for response. Very annoying.

No, Alexa... I'm the one who asks the questions here. if I wanted to know that other thing I would have asked for that other thing; stop prompting me.

, but it seems like getting users addicted has averted the prospect of such reckoning.

If they got addicted, then it is by definition providing some kind of value; there has to be continued value of some type to keep people engaged -- you just don't know what that value is.

Haig vs Agee established that there are circumstances under which the government can lawfully impinge upon an individual's First Amendment rights
if it is necessary to protect national security and prevent substantial harm.

Haig vs Agee would be greatly in error. The Constitution's First Amendment has no Except to protect national security clause. That would be for a good reason "national security" is Not an exception to the First amendment.

In fact.. the Government can assert that anything inconvenient to the current politicians is a "threat to national security", Because the concept of national security itself is very poorly defined and national security means whatever the current elected government wants it to mean, Because it is not defined by the constitution, And national security is Not even one of congress enumerated legislative powers to "Protect national security". What part of Shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech is not understood? No law does not mean No law, unless national security is affected.

Finally, even if congress Can make a law If necessary to protect national security. It is not actually Necessary for Tiktok, as there are other laws that can be passed without abridging the freedom of speech or their freedom to do business.

TikTok and the AI that can be channelled through it are national and homeland security issues that meet these standards.

"Presents national security issues" does Not mean Tiktok and Tiktok users and other companies doing in the business don't have 1st amendment rights.