Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
Bed

@simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland apologies we seem to be caught in reply chaos ;) my argument is just in support for calling all subscribe-able on-demand audio to be called “podcasts”. That some are delivered by public RSS and some are exclusive to one platform is an implementation detail that most people don’t care about. This is arguing with the OP’s contention that only public RSS delivered audio are allowed to be called podcasts.

10 comments
Simon Lucy replied to Bed

@bed @jaredwhite @jamescridland

True, on the reply chaos.

I'd only say that if it's only available on one platform (which may even be public) it can't be a podcast because that independence of platform is the real defining characteristic.

If there was an alternative portable open format then there's nothing to stop that being used for a podcast.

R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd: replied to Bed

@bed

"Most people don't care about" anything at all until it is far too late to change it for the better.

Look all around you. This is the biggest community of Don Quixotes I've ever seen, and once we get a taste of the freedom from corporate-controlled garbage, we ain't letting go of it.

I'm all for "lost" causes, because they're only truly lost when you decide to surrender them.

@simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland

Bed replied to R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:

@RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland I don’t disagree. My point is argue against exclusivity itself. Don’t argue semantics on terminology

R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd: replied to Bed

@bed

But even the semantics are a bloody corporate PsyOp. :blobcatverysad:

If the corporations think it's important enough to pour millions into re-defining a word, is that definition then inherently worth fighting for? I certainly think so.

I'm not even necessary anti-capitalist; I'm seeing where things are heading and I'm responding with one big fat "Aw hail no."

Corporate efforts toward digital hegemony doth make digital socialists of us all.
Or digital chattel.

@simon_lucy @jaredwhite

@bed

But even the semantics are a bloody corporate PsyOp. :blobcatverysad:

If the corporations think it's important enough to pour millions into re-defining a word, is that definition then inherently worth fighting for? I certainly think so.

I'm not even necessary anti-capitalist; I'm seeing where things are heading and I'm responding with one big fat "Aw hail no."

Bed replied to R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:

@RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite it’s a nice ideal, I just don’t think it’s particularly pragmatic. Good luck tho!

Bed replied to R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd:

@RL_Dane @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland agree! To clarify I don’t think fighting against closed platforms is a lost cause. I think it’s the trying to stop the term “podcast” being used by closed platforms that is the lost cause.

R. L. Dane :debian: :openbsd: replied to Bed

@bed

I don't think anyone is realistically trying to stop *platforms*, that really WOULD be tilting at windmills.

But advocacy? Persuasion? Even snark?

That's where it's at! :ablobcatrave:

@simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland

Joshua replied to Bed

@bed @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland the question is though what should people care about? Not the technical details, but I think open versus closed platform is very important for everyone

Bed replied to Joshua

@zenten @simon_lucy @jaredwhite @jamescridland agree strongly on this. Closed podcast platforms are worse for everyone and should be heavily criticised!

Go Up