jcolag

I believe that YouTube supports RSS. I haven't used it in years, but gPodder allowed subscribing to channels.

Ah, yeah. From this post:

• Go to the YouTube channel page.
• Click more for the About box.
• Scroll down to click Share channel. Choose Copy channel ID.
• Get the feed from https://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id= plus that channel ID from the previous step.

From there, something (like a podcast client) needs to grab the video.

Otherwise, I've been using Tartube to download to my media server, which is not great but fine, except for needing to delete the lock file when it (or the computer) crashes, and the fact that the media server hasn't the foggiest idea of how to organize the "episodes."

I can't vouch for anything about it, since I've never done more than look and bookmark the page, but Vidzy at least exists and has an instance that plays one short video...

I'd say to ignore the platform licensing and just make sure that the license appears in the media itself (which it should, anyway, in case anybody finds it randomly) and marked in descriptions.

YouTube seems interesting, because there's so much garbage listed as CC-BY that almost certainly doesn't have any legitimate permission for it, and I've never found actual Creative Commons content through that route, so that probably informs my "just ignore it" thinking...

The Indie Web website up there actually has protocols to do most of what people do for social media, in exactly that structure. It's enough of a pain to set up that I don't see it becoming normal, but the amount that I've set up for my website at least works...

Likewise, feel free to reach out if you need a hand. I don't always have time, but I do my share of weird programming.

Always good to see more effort to surface these things. A couple of possible enhancements come to mind.

• Pepper & Carrot probably belongs under comics, and/or comics belongs as a subset of fiction.
• It'd be great to filter by license, maybe similar to what Openverse (which you already have listed) does. I know that Creative Commons doesn't see a problem with incompatible licenses, but I feel like people in the space have strong feelings about how "free/libre" it is to say that something can't be used commercially (whatever that means) or can't be altered.
• If you want a pile of fiction of various sorts, at the risk of self-promoting, I spotlight (and ideally have discussions around) Free Culture works on Saturdays. https://john.colagioia.net/blog/tag/bookclub/ (And a bunch of the links actually lead to collections.)
• Another pile, you'll need to figure out how to sift through on your own (I haven't had the time to figure out how to parse it), but Chris "Sanglorian" Sakkas posted the (I imagine) final backup of his Free and Open Works wiki, sort of your predecessor project. (Edit: I stupidly forgot the link https://archive.org/details/freeand-open-works-20200811084450)
• Too much manual labor, I realize, especially as the list expands, but ideally, it'd be nice to have some idea of what lives at the other end of a link beyond the format. The videos especially could plausibly be anything...

Thanks for getting this rolling!

I only just learned about this, so haven't signed up or checked out the communities and therefore won't endorse it, but Codidact just came across my desk. https://codidact.com/

The only dedicated site that I know of is the Iranian Tasnim News, though Global Voices has some writers in the general area, too.

Sure, we could point to thousands of years of really smart people trying and utterly failing to build mathematical models for innovation and thought, but it also does make a certain amount of sense that, if you pile up enough transistors and wish really hard, that your investment will Frosty the Snowman itself into being your friend, right...?

I keep saying "no" to this sort of thing, for a variety of reasons.

1. "You can use this code for anything you want as long as you don't work in a field that I don't like" is pretty much the opposite of the spirit of the GPL.
2. The enormous companies slurping up all content available on the Internet do not care about copyright. The GPL already forbids adapting and redistributing code without licensing under the GPL, and they're not doing that. So another clause that says "hey, if you're training an AI, leave me out" is wasted text that nobody is going to read.
3. Making "AI" an issue instead of "big corporate abuse" means that academics and hobbyists can't legally train a language model on your code, even if they would otherwise comply with the license.
4. The FSF has never cared about anything unless Stallman personally cared about it on his personal computer, and they've recently proven that he matters to them more than the community, so we probably shouldn't ever expect a new GPL.
5. The GPL has so many problems (because it's been based on one person's personal focuses) that they don't care about or isolate in random silos (like the AGPL, as if the web is still a fringe thing) that AI barely seems relevant.

I mean, I get it. The language-model people are exhausting, and their disinterest in copyright law is unpleasant. But asking an organization that doesn't care to add restrictions to a license that the companies don't read isn't going to solve the problem.

In addition to YaCy and the varieties of Searx (both of which perform better for me than any of the commercial search engines), it's not even out of the question to do this yourself, if you're willing to start with the most recent Common Crawl dump and do some spidering in between releases. I don't recommend it, unless you want to learn for yourself why search engines often give such miserable results, but it's possible.

However, that's the issue, here. Can you self-host a search engine? Sure, if you want to maintain the storage to back it. That depends on how deep your pockets go...

Probably, though I don't know their architecture well enough to say. The discussion that I saw referred specifically to PDF.js, which I believe is what the browsers use, though.