|
Top-level
 @jack_regan I don't know what *you're* talking about. I don't know what Spotify and Apple are talking about either. When they say they offer exclusive "podcasts" only available for playback inside their proprietary apps, that's nonsensical to me. It's like saying "visit our website—only available within our specific app, no regular web browsers can support it" because it's not even built with HTML. Crazy. 5 comments
@jack_regan Says the person using the decentralized, open source, open standards-based platform that "most people" said wouldn't amount to a hill of beans and fediverse proponents were fighting a losing battle. And yet here we are. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." @jaredwhite You’re comparing apples and oranges. The existence of social networks isn’t decided by majority rule. The definition of words is. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/podcast @jaredwhite I think when you start to believe you know better than the dictionary, it’s time to reassess. You fundamentally misunderstand how language works. People use words in the way they choose and dictionaries are updated to reflect that. It’s crazy that the word “literally” now also means figuratively… But it’s the way people speak. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally |
Gregory's Server
@jaredwhite I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re getting lost in semantics. Today, most people use podcast to mean on-demand spoken word audio content. Whether you agree or not, you’re fighting a losing battle.