stallman's speech

name at domain 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.