>>596>So you think it is mainly the artists fault in this (youtube) scenario?
If an artist posts work to youtube, and that work is censored, and
the artist is upset about it, then they should have uploaded to a site / service that respects their freedom. Yes, I believe it is the artist's fault in this scenario.
If someone other than the artist illegally uploads their content to youtube, and that content is censored, I have no qualms with that. I don't want to get into IP laws right now, so shying away from what I personally believe, google absolutely has a right and is infact legally obligated to remove / censor that content.
>because it's still on youtube
If what you care about as a content creator is censorship, then it does make a difference. Uploading to multiple locations can only strengthen your chances of not being censored, and thus protecting your freedoms.
If what you care about as a content creator is people pirating your stuff, and protecting your rights in this case means preventing piracy (which is what I think you're getting at, correct me if I'm wrong) then you may be right, free and open source software can't prevent your content from being pirated. But no software can. It's virtually impossible to defeat piracy. If your audience is large enough then piracy will always be an option for consumers. Using youtube because you believe it's a way to curb piracy sounds misguided to me, but I know very little about youtube's piracy policies.
>Or imagine if most of the population is misinformed by propaganda
I already hold such an opinion haha. If people only use google sites ever, and never hear about sites other than google, then I feel sorry for them, but that doesn't mean google has any obligation to those people to protect their freedom of speech or really to inform them of other sites at all. It is up to them as an individual to protect themselves by using FOSS web services / web services that respect their freedoms or by rolling their own.