It's called PeerTube, which is Fediverse/ActivityPub service for video.
The problem is that with video there's a larger separation between users and content creators. Services like Mastodon and Lemmy can grow just from users switching to them because users themselves also post the content, but PeerTube isn't going to grow until the people making videos start posting them there.
if you make a hamburger at home, with lean good quality beef that you grind up yourself or ask them to grind it for you at the counter
If you use lean beef to make a burger, you're Doing It Wrong™. Make the burger smaller or eat them less often if necessary, but don't go below about 20% fat.
More concretely, I recommend using brisket to grind for your hamburgers. It has the correct amount of fat, plus a whole brisket is among the cheapest cuts of beef you can buy.
I don't think OP had any nefarious purpose in it, but this title is ridiculous doublspeak. Google might have a vested interest in trying to bullshit us about this being about "web integrity," but that doesn't mean we have to accept its dishonest framing!
Still, companies do have a right to do this, at this time, and I think it's dangerously delusional to deny it.
On the contrary: there's a very important distinction that I'm trying to make between an entity having the "right" to do something and merely being able to "get away with" doing it. The framing of issues matters, and I believe ceding control of said framing to the neofeudalists is far more dangerous than being accused of "delusion" for pointing out the way things are supposed to be instead of accepting the corrupt status quo at face value.
This is one of this things where I can’t decide, is it more sad, scary or stupid.
It's criminal. Locking up capabilities of hardware you already bought and trying to extract rents for them is literally no different than a mafia protection racket. These car company execs deserve to go go prison for racketeering.
On the contrary: letting manufacturers extract rents for capabilities that the owner already paid for by virtue of having bought the physical device is the opposite of "ownership," and that's the problem here!
Using mass transit is great, but it does nothing to stop this attack on our property rights.
I still own only cars from the '90s and 2000s because of this issue (along with stuff like telemetry spying on you, etc.). However, even if just driving old cars forever works for me, it's hardly a solution for society in general simply because there aren't enough old cars for everybody to have one, let alone all the other problems with it.
These companies are trying to destroy our property rights in order to engage in unethical and abusive rentiership. The correct solution is legislative, not just to ignore them and hope they'll stop!
Although I enthusiastically agree, that's a little off-topic to be the takeaway from this particular kind of article.
In this case, the issue to be outraged about is that the corporations are violating our property rights in order to engage in illegal rentiership. As owners, we have the right to modify our own property, including to unlock the full potential of the physical machine, and no amount of DRM or the DMCA anti-circumvention clause should be allowed to change that!
That doesn't need any kind of new "right to repair" or anything either; it is inherent to the definitions of what "property" and "ownership" are! I mean sure, we should impose requirements for products to be better designed for repairability and have documentation and spare parts available, but lots of people seem to think what Mecedes etc. are doing is currently within their rights, and that's just crazy talk. These things aren't legitimate subscriptions; they're a protection racket! Trying to hold capabilities hostage that the device owner already paid for (by virtue of having bought the physical device) is literally criminal and company executives ought to be going to prison for it.
Anyway, to get back to addessing your comment: even if we do fix the zoning code to make cities walkable (which we definitely should do, by the way) and cars become a niche product that only rural people and folks who have to drive around as part of their job have, it still doesn't fix this issue because (a) it's important to protect the rights of owners even of niche products, and even more importantly (b) cars are hardly the only product category that manufacturers are trying to pull this shit in anyway.
TL;DR: stopping the erosion of ownership and fixing car dependency are orthogonal issues, this article is concerned with the former, and your suggestion only addresses the latter.
That's a naive position. The fact that so many other people use those services means you will be made to care because of their influence on politics etc. Oligarchs like Musk and Zuckerberg having disproportionate control over the public discourse is a threat to you whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
Considering how many Mac users are software developers (either who need to work cross-platform or who really wanted Linux but were forced by company policy to choose either Mac or Windowe and picked the more unixy one), I think the number using the terminal might be a lot higher than 0.1%.
It hasn't succeeded in nagging me to properly back up my data yet, so I think it needs to be discussed even more.