The SEO framework (slug: autodescription) is great and performs about 30x as good as Yoast SEO in terms of processing time. They’re also pretty strict about sticking to WordPress’ native styles.
It is a violation of a code of conduct that doesn't exist yet. It is a proposed future code of conduct. She was kicked out because it was decided that questioning the logic of the future code of conduct meant she didn't (or wouldn't -- I'm not sure which one is worse) follow the code of conduct that hadn't been implemented yet.
I'm not sure what applicability this link has here? It seems unrelated. What am I missing?
(genuine question, no tongues in cheeks, I don't see the connection)
Edit: Upon further thought, I think maybe you're agreeing with me and saying that Burwell vs Hobby Lobby gives precedent to WeWork being entitled to do this? Legally, maybe, but it seems specially concerned with religious affiliation, which vegatarianism isn't, so I don't think it would apply. It also presumes you agree with the Burwell vs Hobby Lobby decision; some people might not.
It's a fair comparison, but I don't think it holds water. I just think what WeWork is doing is fine because employees aren't morally entitled to free food from their employer.
I think for this to be successful you need to encourage users to server the videos. There are a couple things that might help this:
- Popularity could be based not only on views, but how many total minutes of the video were shared by other people.
- When someone watches a video, they have to keep hosting it until they share as much as they've watched it (so if they watched 10 minutes, they have to share it until they've distributed 10 minutes worth of the video to other people.
In my current model for a distributed video service, peers gain "premium" bandwidth rights in exchange for storing videos, modulated by view count.
Plenty of users would store popular videos to chase after premiums, but it will be similarly profitable for a handful or so of people to host the less popular videos because there will be less competition for views (which are in turn modulated by the amount of data for a video you contributed to a given P2P stream).
This solves the problem of obscure but useful content being phased out.
Most people have terrible upload speeds compared to download speeds. In my neighborhood most people (by choice because they aren't tech savy and don't care) have AT&T DSL with 40Mbps download but 2Mbps upload. This means that for a good quality 10 minute video at 720p with a bitrate of 3mbps they would have to seed for significantly longer than viewing just to get a ratio of 1 without degrading downstream performance.
An idea of been playing with in my head is a youtube-in-a-box" type device, a machine you would buy that would sit on your home network, essentially a NAS that could publish to video sites or services like peertube. With that sort of device any unused space and bandwidth could be allocated for sharing the videos of others.
LBRY and dtube (and maybe a few others) use a blockchain model, which allows creators to easily get paid by viewer donations as well as by pay-per-view. A good incentive to seed would be to payout some whatevercoin for every view/hour/megabit of video seeded, but I don't think they do that.
