> Isn't it a little fucked up that most (all?) of our social networks don't allow for you to share content to other people without implicitly making a statement about it?
Related to your IPFS comment, social media is also skewed towards sharing links to content which is hosted elsewhere. "Sharing a video" is really sharing a URL to a Web page containing a video, which may not be there tomorrow.
The restrictions on social media services, like Twitter's short message length, and the restrictions on media services which make it non-trivial to save copies, like YouTube hijacking the right-click menu to remove "save as", reinforce each other.
Hopefully something like IPFS can disrupt this situation, so that content starts getting shared again, rather than just URLs whose destination is controlled by a single organisation.
Related to your IPFS comment, social media is also skewed towards sharing links to content which is hosted elsewhere. "Sharing a video" is really sharing a URL to a Web page containing a video, which may not be there tomorrow.
The restrictions on social media services, like Twitter's short message length, and the restrictions on media services which make it non-trivial to save copies, like YouTube hijacking the right-click menu to remove "save as", reinforce each other.
Hopefully something like IPFS can disrupt this situation, so that content starts getting shared again, rather than just URLs whose destination is controlled by a single organisation.