YouDem, YouTube

If a political party looses the opportunity to have an equal relationship, on the same level, a two-way relationship, it's indeed evil.

Especially if the party is (said to be) democratic.

Mussolini established a large consensus through the media , but the relationship was a one-way one. If just one of the 2 persons *can* speak, it's called propaganda. IMHO.

@Boh: I began using the word "evil", so I have to bear the consequences... but I'd be less radical, meaning that it's not worse than we are used to. At least, contributors' voices will be heard (not necessarily listened to, but this does not belong to the Terms of Service) - but I would not feel at ease in giving away the permission to do everything everywhere everytime with my face and voice. That would require a very high degree of confidence in our (mine and the PD's) everlasting identity of views...

That's default for any - ANY - commercial webtv nested in this social,legal,economic system. No blame... just shame.

(boh, you'd better peace off)

@mfp: in order to get my appreciation, they should have done something above default - and expressing my objections is a minimal form of hope, and that's the way I understand Boh's indignation as well...

Simple to say, hard to do. Please, give an example, which is a good practice?

(boh indignates too easy, she doesn't know what she is speaking about)

@mfp: the Internet Archive?

Internet Archive is a no profit, no self-serving, no self-perpetuating, project. Ie: it's not a valid example beacouse can't be compared with business or political projects. (Anyway, if you don't agree with me, please quote the relevant parts of its ToU)

@mfp - so you've nailed down the central point of the issue: in my opinion, political should be closer to "no profit" than to "business". Self-serving and self-perpetuating (?) might be relevant to both.

The only thing I'm nailing down is you. You - and many many many others - are the central point of the issue.

All the rest is non sense:

- what does it mean "wasting an opportunity to create a two-way relationship" speaking about self-serving and self-perpetuating entities?
Once we are speaking about those entities, two-way relationship is impossible... that's why the conclusion of this trial is a dictatorship wheter you explicitly want a one-to-many relationship or you fake a two-way one (btw, saying this I'm not pretending to predict the future; I'm just stating what have already been in the past).

- what does it mean "political should be closer to no-profit than to business"? Have you ever read Gandhi? Have you ever tought that a politician have to be disinterested, regardless of social and business revenues?

- over all: what does it mean complaining about youdem.tv? Hope? Blog-show business?

bwuahahhahahhaah! Suckers.

Fabio, I don't see licensing as a major issue here. The real problem, and the big difference wrt YouTube and simila, is how the content will be selected and organized:
"C'è una redazione che organizza i contenuti in relazione ad una linea editoriale che può arricchirsi e modellarsi anche a fronte della discussione tra i membri della community" (too lazy to translate it in English, sorry)

@Guido - I see your point: that's where problems would indeed arise - and even with a correct, respectful form of licensing. Thanks for pointing that out.