@maxwainwright@toot.community cover
@maxwainwright@toot.community avatar

maxwainwright

@[email protected]

I make experimental electronic and acoustic music involving free improvisation, adapting to complex systems and making & using terrible instruments. I've done solo and collaborative performances, installations, sculpture, radio pieces, chamber composition, video work and more.

I also make instruments/devices (not terrible) under the name noise.technology. I sell them online and use them in workshops.

he/him
alts:
profile pic: me swinging a loudspeaker.
header: me performing, kneeling.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. View on remote instance

ajsadauskas , (edited ) to Technology
@ajsadauskas@aus.social avatar

My real worry with Google's voyage into enshittification (thanks to Cory Doctorow @pluralistic the term) is YouTube.

Through YT, for the past 15 years, the world has basically entrusted Google to be the custodian of pretty much our entire global video archive.

There's countless hours of archived footage — news reports, political speeches, historical events, documentaries, indie films, academic lectures, conference presentations, rare recordings, concert footage, obscure music — where the best or only copy is now held by Google through YouTube.

So what happens if maintaining that archival footage becomes unprofitable?

@technology

maxwainwright ,
@maxwainwright@toot.community avatar

@ajsadauskas @pluralistic @technology i think it already is unprofitable, just that they haven’t decided (how) to act upon that fact.

On the other hand, is hosting it all become more or less expensive over time? If server costs are getting lower faster than the amount of stuff people upload grows, they could well keep it just to know what every person online wants to watch (and show ads, I guess).

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • tech
  • kbinEarth
  • testing
  • interstellar
  • wanderlust
  • All magazines
    •