The issue is he’s correct in regards to business: the vast majority of people are clueless and will buy/use anything if the advertising is good enough.

There was no way for me to know there would be a link to an alternate host in (I’m assuming) the description of the youtube video. It’s not one click away either. You have to allow youtube to run foreign javascript, otherwise you are presented with a blank page. That is to say you have to enable Google’s surveillance before you’re allowed to see a link that may or may not be there (and in this case there was no indication such a link would exist). Why didn’t the author link to the nonspyware host? Hosting video is a cost Google bears to surveil traffic. If you visit youtube to click on a link to a nonspyware host without loading any video resources you’ve given over data that usually would require a penalty from Google (serving the video). Google hosts videos to lure traffic to surveil. It is incorrect and misleading to say it’s “literally one click away”. That euphemism hides the reality, which is you have to submit to Google’s surveillance and malware.

I will take this opportunity to remind people that Google is killing others. They’re selling their AI services to the Americans and the Israelis. They’re enabling a genocide.

Criticism of the matrix protocol: https://hackea.org/notas/matrix.html.

I will not access the posted video as it’s hosted on hostile infrastructure. I request that the author share their videos in a way that honours freedom. Continuing to use the current provider is to enforce the existing monopoly on video distribution and is counter productive to libre software. I will list some viable alternatives: Mediagoblin: https://mediagoblin.org/; Peertube: https://joinpeertube.org/; or via BitTorrent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent.

I will not use the matrix protocol due to its origin with Israel’s intelligence community. Its design is nonsensical in the contexts of liberty, privacy and cryptography. However the design is strikingly coherent if the goal was to design an encrypted communication protocol that was ‘decentralised’, but still auditable by external agents. This design is why government agencies would consider its adoption, but knowing its origins I can not endorse it.