00:00:00
Hey everybody, how's it going? Hope
00:00:01
you're having a lovely day. So today I'd
00:00:02
like to invite Keith on. He is going to
00:00:04
be managing the consumer rights wiki
00:00:05
that I've been talking about a lot here.
00:00:07
I want to go over these issues of
00:00:09
anti-ownership and a lot of these
00:00:10
anti-consumer issues. I go over them on
00:00:12
my channel. I often make videos that are
00:00:14
18 minutes long that nobody wants to
00:00:15
watch. So I'm going to try to condense
00:00:17
these into professional type articles
00:00:18
that a journalist can look at and
00:00:20
understand the issue but also
00:00:21
simultaneously not feel like they are
00:00:23
listening to a a Brooklyn man screaming
00:00:25
into his camera. So without further ado,
00:00:27
Keith, thank you very much for taking
00:00:28
the time.
00:00:30
Hi. Hi, Louis. Um, yeah, thank you for
00:00:33
having me on. Um, doing all right. With
00:00:35
Keith was most helpful with is coming up
00:00:36
with a framework for what should and
00:00:38
should not be in the wiki because this
00:00:39
can't be something where it's up to
00:00:40
Louiswis's whims for how something is
00:00:42
written or what constitutes an issue.
00:00:44
So, what type of issues are allowed in
00:00:46
the wiki versus what should be just a
00:00:47
Yelp or a Google review. What is
00:00:49
something that's written in the proper
00:00:50
tone of voice versus something that
00:00:51
sounds like it belongs in an angry
00:00:53
YouTube video? These were all things
00:00:54
that were necessary for this to be taken
00:00:56
seriously, for this to be scalable, and
00:00:57
for this to be something that I could
00:00:58
show to a journalist and hopefully
00:01:00
someday have them go through it and go,
00:01:01
"Wow, this would be a great story. All
00:01:03
the research is already here, which
00:01:04
makes it easy for me to run a story on
00:01:05
the issue." You brought up a good point
00:01:07
about the uniqueness of the wiki, which
00:01:09
is that for a consumer rights issue,
00:01:11
there's lots of places on the internet
00:01:13
where you can go to report a consumer
00:01:14
rights issue. So, you can write a Google
00:01:16
review, a Reddit thread, a Yelp review,
00:01:18
go on the BBB and make a complaint. You
00:01:20
can contact Lewis or any number of other
00:01:22
media outlets. But there exists no,
00:01:27
apart from this wiki, there exists no
00:01:29
centralized place where all of these
00:01:32
consumer rights violations can be sat
00:01:35
together in one place and at least
00:01:38
somewhat sort of curated and kept
00:01:41
organized and presentable and
00:01:42
understandable. The real goal of the
00:01:44
wiki is to take all of these different
00:01:47
millions of stories of customers getting
00:01:49
ripped off, of customers rights being
00:01:51
taken away by products that they bought
00:01:54
and put them all into one place so that
00:01:58
it we can create a really sort of
00:02:00
compelling solution for telling people
00:02:03
about this issue where we sort of go,
00:02:06
you know, somewhat some senator asks is
00:02:08
this really a big issue and we say yes,
00:02:10
we've filled an entire wiki with it.
00:02:12
That's the main thrust of the mission of
00:02:14
the wiki is to create that entity. So
00:02:17
can you talk about what the rules are
00:02:19
and how you came up with the framework
00:02:20
for turning this into a professional
00:02:22
project? A lot of the rules when I'm
00:02:23
putting this together, we basically want
00:02:25
to fulfill the objectives of as you said
00:02:28
it needs to be reliable. It needs to
00:02:31
come across in a way that's sort of
00:02:32
fairly sane and it need you know it
00:02:36
doesn't want to be somebody's rant. It
00:02:37
wants to be something that looks quite
00:02:40
professional and we want to be credible
00:02:44
and being credible is quite hard when
00:02:47
you're a wiki because you're just you're
00:02:50
basically just a bunch of people on the
00:02:51
internet collaborating to write a
00:02:53
website, right? So, it's quite difficult
00:02:55
to maintain that credibility. And a lot
00:02:58
of our policies sort of take inspiration
00:03:00
from the way Wikipedia does things
00:03:02
because obviously even though your
00:03:05
second grade history teacher told you,
00:03:06
"Oh, you can't use Wikipedia. It's not a
00:03:08
source." That is, people generally do
00:03:11
are able to rely on Wikipedia because
00:03:13
it's quite well put together. Even
00:03:15
though your your second grade teacher
00:03:17
might say that um Wikipedia is not a
00:03:19
good source, these days it's pretty
00:03:20
reliable. People can generally rely on
00:03:22
it. We essentially want to have that
00:03:24
level of credibility. We don't expect a
00:03:26
journalist to necessarily come on here
00:03:28
and take everything at face value, but
00:03:30
we'd like them to be able when they're
00:03:32
researching au consumer rights issue to
00:03:34
be able to come on and sort of look, all
00:03:36
right, here's an article. I kind of have
00:03:39
a general sense that the sources that
00:03:41
are linked here are fairly represented
00:03:44
by the article and also that this
00:03:47
article does have sources and then the
00:03:49
journalists could go and look at the
00:03:50
sources, work out what's going on. We
00:03:52
want people to be able to come to the
00:03:53
wiki with the understanding that what
00:03:56
they're going to read is not just
00:03:58
someone's personal vendetta against a
00:04:01
company. They want to know that, okay,
00:04:04
this is a story, this this incident or
00:04:06
whatever is something that a few serious
00:04:09
outlets have looked at, a few consumer
00:04:11
rights advocates have been talking
00:04:12
about. We essentially don't want the
00:04:14
wiki to be the first place where
00:04:16
something gets reported. So a decent way
00:04:20
to think about this is in the context of
00:04:22
history on Wikipedia. Um a very
00:04:25
reputable historian or someone like that
00:04:27
actually goes and finds a new primary
00:04:30
source and gets and is able to make some
00:04:32
new history. They can't just go and post
00:04:35
that new history and link to the primary
00:04:37
source on Wikipedia. they need to first
00:04:39
sort of write a paper, have it
00:04:41
peer-reviewed, have the sources sort of
00:04:44
out in the open, have other people look
00:04:46
at it, and then use those secondary
00:04:49
sources in order to justify the
00:04:51
inclusion of that new discovery on
00:04:53
Wikipedia. And in the same way here, if
00:04:55
someone just comes and dumps a bunch of
00:04:57
screenshots and sort of says this, this
00:04:59
has been my experience with something.
00:05:01
First of all, we don't really know
00:05:04
whether those screenshots check out,
00:05:05
whether they're legit. And we don't have
00:05:08
any good sort of yard stick for is this
00:05:11
something that's been reported on? Is
00:05:12
this something that anyone outside of
00:05:14
this person cares about? Is it suitable
00:05:17
for the wiki? So that that's why we sort
00:05:19
of have requirements that things are
00:05:21
reported on first before anything goes
00:05:23
on the wiki. Yeah. One of the things you
00:05:24
said where your second grade teacher
00:05:26
said you can't use Wikipedia as a
00:05:27
source. Wikipedia itself is not a
00:05:28
source. However, when they tell you
00:05:30
about what events have occurred, it's
00:05:31
very easy to find your sources from
00:05:33
Wikipedia if you're not really sure
00:05:34
where to start looking for them. And one
00:05:35
of the things that I'm hoping this does
00:05:36
to help journalists is I say this
00:05:38
company did this 5 years ago and this is
00:05:40
similar. There needs to be a link to
00:05:42
something credible and it shouldn't just
00:05:43
be a news article talking about the
00:05:44
issue. If we're talking about a
00:05:46
particular lawsuit that occurred, it
00:05:47
would be nice to actually link to the
00:05:48
PDF of that lawsuit. And I'm happy to
00:05:50
have the storage here where people can
00:05:52
upload files with the original PDFs of
00:05:54
these lawsuits, of these court cases, of
00:05:55
a letter that Ron Widen wrote to the FTC
00:05:57
asking them to look into a particular
00:05:58
issue. And I like that it's all there
00:06:00
where somebody can see it. So, the two
00:06:02
questions I get the most often that are
00:06:03
related were A, why do there articles
00:06:05
that will say this is a stub and B, how
00:06:07
can I help? So, one of the things that
00:06:09
we have here to try and keep standards
00:06:10
high while simultaneously allowing
00:06:12
people to post as many issues as
00:06:13
possible that are legitimate is we will
00:06:15
have things that are posted with a stub
00:06:16
notice. This article requires additional
00:06:18
expansion because we have content
00:06:19
guidelines. We have editorial guidelines
00:06:21
and sourcing guidelines. And one of the
00:06:23
things that I love about this is if you
00:06:25
take a look at something like let's just
00:06:26
say this old Netflix article that is
00:06:28
Yeah, I have to click on to like 500
00:06:30
headsets to find the original. Here we
00:06:31
go. So, if you look at the original
00:06:33
article, this is two paragraphs that
00:06:35
really are lacking in detail. And then
00:06:37
if you look at the current article, it
00:06:39
is this beautiful thing with all the
00:06:42
sources cited. You got the dark pattern
00:06:44
here with images taken, all the exact
00:06:46
technical things that they are keeping
00:06:48
from you versus what they are not
00:06:49
keeping from you, which is really
00:06:50
beautiful. So how can people help with
00:06:53
turning stubs into non-stubs? And why do
00:06:56
we have stub notices on the wiki? Since
00:06:58
journalists will ask me, I I clicked on
00:07:01
to random article and like two or three
00:07:03
of them said, "This is a stub. This
00:07:04
requires expansion." So why do we allow
00:07:06
content up there that is not fully
00:07:07
fleshed out yet? So I mean the the
00:07:09
ultimate thing is that this is a wiki.
00:07:11
This is a collaborative project and
00:07:13
there's going to be a lot of content
00:07:15
which doesn't meet standards yet but
00:07:18
likely will meet standards in the future
00:07:20
if lots of people contribute to it. And
00:07:22
we have we have these warnings sort of
00:07:25
quite first and foremost because this
00:07:28
entire wiki is about telling companies
00:07:31
that you've done something bad and this
00:07:33
entire wiki is talking is talking about
00:07:36
various problems that companies have had
00:07:38
or that kind of thing. And it can be
00:07:40
quite problematic if we do have an
00:07:42
improperly sourced article that say
00:07:44
targets a specific company or business
00:07:46
or something because getting a bad
00:07:48
reputation on a on a large platform
00:07:51
undeservedly can ruin an innocent
00:07:53
company's career. That that sort of
00:07:55
thing. We don't want that to happen. But
00:07:57
at the same time, we also don't want to
00:08:00
police the wiki in such a strict way
00:08:02
where we say if this article you've
00:08:04
uploaded doesn't have a million sources
00:08:07
and isn't perfect in every way, we're
00:08:09
just going to delete it and say come
00:08:11
back again and try again because that's
00:08:13
not conducive to creating pages that can
00:08:16
grow and um the sort of community
00:08:19
community effort. So the the sort of
00:08:22
compromise we've landed on is four
00:08:24
articles that don't meet our evidentiary
00:08:27
standards that are sort of too small or
00:08:29
what whatever the situation is. We have
00:08:31
these big notices at the top that say to
00:08:33
any reader this article is not done yet.
00:08:36
There are these problems with it. Some
00:08:39
of those notices are a bit generic. We
00:08:40
we'll probably be trying to tidy them up
00:08:42
in the future. But the there are these
00:08:43
problems with the article and it's it's
00:08:46
not done yet. And that also allows
00:08:49
people to search for the articles. So
00:08:50
within the categories section of the
00:08:52
wiki, there's a category that is
00:08:54
articles in need of work. I think it's
00:08:56
also linked on the main page. And that
00:08:58
will allow you to find all the different
00:09:00
articles that have these notices on. So
00:09:03
you can go and sort of go, all right,
00:09:06
here's an article I can work on and sort
00:09:08
of take from whatever stage it is now
00:09:10
all the way up to a fully fleshed out
00:09:12
and great article. That's an important
00:09:14
part of the wiki. those notices that
00:09:16
tell they tell the audience that
00:09:18
something might not be fully trustworthy
00:09:20
or not fully cooked yet and they give
00:09:25
editors the ability to find those
00:09:26
articles and they allow us to keep them
00:09:29
on the wiki because we can't be going
00:09:31
around defaming companies for no reason.
00:09:33
We need to have some way of saying this
00:09:37
is not quite done yet. I like the idea
00:09:39
of having the issue there and then
00:09:41
allowing people to come along and then
00:09:42
do what the internet does best which is
00:09:44
you know hundreds of people working
00:09:45
together to add a teeny tiny piece here
00:09:47
a piece there a piece there and then
00:09:48
turn it into something beautiful and the
00:09:50
thing is I think a lot of people have
00:09:52
this misconception that in order to make
00:09:53
this better they have to be willing to
00:09:54
write an entard article from scratch and
00:09:56
do all the work themselves when in
00:09:58
reality 99% of the work is just taking
00:10:00
something that already exists and making
00:10:02
it 5% better and the amount of effort
00:10:04
that it takes to make it.5% better I
00:10:06
think is a lot less than people think it
00:10:08
It could simply be just check clicking
00:10:09
the link on a source and seeing if it
00:10:11
works, seeing if there's a typo in that
00:10:12
particular part of the article. If you
00:10:14
see something that's written in a
00:10:15
strange way, removing it. If you see
00:10:16
something that has an M dash, random
00:10:18
bolding, uh like knowing who wrote that
00:10:21
article and beating the robot out of it
00:10:23
and you know, inside joke on chat GPT.
00:10:27
There's I'd like I'd like to uh shout
00:10:29
out actually there's there's a user
00:10:30
called Sinx Titan who's been doing some
00:10:33
just on those kind of tiny little copy
00:10:35
editing, making sentence structures
00:10:38
clearer, clearing up the tone on things.
00:10:40
They've been they've been doing I've
00:10:41
just I see them every now and then in
00:10:43
the wiki feed and they've just made
00:10:44
some, you know, small little edits to
00:10:46
make an article better. And that that's
00:10:48
really one of those things that's it's
00:10:51
great to see when that happens. Yeah, I
00:10:53
really enjoy that. We also have a
00:10:55
something that's designed to get as many
00:10:57
people excited about this as possible.
00:10:58
We have this leaderboard over here. So,
00:11:00
you can see who the top contributors
00:11:02
are. And the only reason I think I'm
00:11:04
there is because I accidentally
00:11:05
imported. I think I had to do a batch
00:11:07
image reimpport. And because I did a
00:11:08
batch image reimpport, I wound up with
00:11:10
the highest score, which is total
00:11:11
cheating. But I should not be on the
00:11:13
list. But you could see the people who
00:11:14
were the largest contributors over these
00:11:17
period of time. And it I've noticed it
00:11:19
does motivate people. like you could see
00:11:20
sometimes people like competing back and
00:11:21
forth to try and make sure that they
00:11:23
keep up a top position. And I like that
00:11:25
there's that that like putting a little
00:11:26
bit of a competitive element in there to
00:11:28
keep it exciting and fun. So one of the
00:11:31
qu another question is as who is looking
00:11:33
through all of this because we I
00:11:35
purposely set this up to make it as easy
00:11:37
as possible to contribute. You don't
00:11:38
even need to register or log into this
00:11:39
website. You can make an edit
00:11:41
immediately the same way you can on
00:11:42
Wikipedia. You may have to answer a
00:11:43
capture if you're not logged in to deal
00:11:45
with the spam. But what like h how have
00:11:48
we dealt with the fact that literally
00:11:50
anybody can edit on this and kept the
00:11:52
information accurate and also kept it
00:11:53
from just becoming a bunch of goatsy
00:11:55
asci or asy. So, um, some of some of
00:11:58
that is, uh, down to myself and the the
00:12:01
mod and the admin team, but ultimately,
00:12:04
much like Wikipedia, because anyone can
00:12:07
edit it, everyone's free to sort of be
00:12:09
looking through the edit list and sort
00:12:10
of seeing, oh, that seems wrong, or oh,
00:12:13
that's written in a very strange tone
00:12:16
and that seems quite
00:12:18
um that seems out of line with what the
00:12:20
wiki wants. And you can go in and edit
00:12:23
it. And the the motto that Wikipedia
00:12:26
uses is be bold. Which essentially means
00:12:29
just if you think something needs to be
00:12:31
edited, just go in and edit it. And if
00:12:34
somebody else doesn't like it, if the
00:12:36
original person who wrote that article
00:12:38
to start with doesn't like it, then they
00:12:40
can come back and change. And if you're
00:12:41
going back and forth, you should
00:12:42
probably have a discussion on the talk
00:12:44
page. But that's one of the core
00:12:45
principles of Wikipedia, and it really
00:12:47
applies here as well. So sort of be bold
00:12:49
and edit things. One of the core
00:12:50
principles of the internet that I found
00:12:51
and admittedly I use this to somewhat
00:12:54
cheat when I'm dealing with the
00:12:55
difficult uh coding or Linux problems is
00:12:57
if you ask a question you will not get
00:12:59
the right answer. However, if you say
00:13:00
the wrong answer, oh my god, this
00:13:02
people, you will like you will have
00:13:04
genius expert PhD level engineers with
00:13:06
20 years of experience coming out and
00:13:07
say, "You idiot. This is not the way you
00:13:10
do that. You're supposed to do ex I'm
00:13:11
like, tell me more. Tell me more." As of
00:13:14
taking down all the notes and there is
00:13:15
this power of if you said something even
00:13:17
a teeny tiny bit wrong. Somebody out
00:13:19
there on the internet will hear that pin
00:13:20
drop in a haststack and needle in a
00:13:22
haststack. Pin drop in a haststack. I
00:13:25
need to have breakfast to get my
00:13:26
analogies right. Just I think pin in a
00:13:28
haststack that just hear the pin drop.
00:13:31
Hearing the pin drop. Yes. Somebody out
00:13:33
there will hear that somebody was wrong
00:13:35
on the internet and they will fly out to
00:13:37
fix it. And that was the hope that I
00:13:38
had. And if we lower the barrier to
00:13:39
entry as much as humanly possible and
00:13:41
make it so you could literally edit
00:13:43
without doing anything or without having
00:13:44
to sign up and register and deal with
00:13:46
like checking your email and two-factor
00:13:48
verification and all that that there's a
00:13:50
greater likelihood of somebody hearing
00:13:52
that pin drop and decides to go over and
00:13:54
pick it up. And so far that has been
00:13:56
working really well. And we also have in
00:13:57
the chat room we have a bot that will
00:14:00
let us know every single time there's an
00:14:01
edit. And every time there's an edit,
00:14:03
there's probably somebody there maybe
00:14:04
they got nothing better to do taking a
00:14:06
work break and they can just click on it
00:14:07
and see what did they do and is this
00:14:08
correct? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. What
00:14:10
the thing that Lewis was referring to
00:14:11
there is we we have a discord for the
00:14:13
wiki and there's a there's a channel I
00:14:15
think it's called uh I think it's just
00:14:17
called wiki and it it's literally just a
00:14:20
feed of every single edit to the wiki
00:14:23
and also all of the new bot users that
00:14:26
join. There's there's quite a lot of bot
00:14:28
users that end up joining but at the
00:14:30
same time we've got spam filters which
00:14:32
are reasonably good at um sort of
00:14:35
cutting those out and we see a lot of
00:14:37
bots register. We almost never see them
00:14:40
actually able to post anything. Making
00:14:42
the spam filters are working fairly
00:14:44
well. Making the food self-hosted wiki
00:14:46
was excellent exceptional practice for
00:14:48
me for figuring out how to come up with
00:14:49
a perfect spam filter and a perfect set
00:14:51
of these restrictions so that uh anybody
00:14:54
can edit but simultaneously I'm not
00:14:55
getting a bunch of nonsensical accounts
00:14:57
and dickpill websites adding writing
00:15:00
articles. You're allowed to be clear if
00:15:01
you want to write a dickpick pill
00:15:02
article on like on forced arbitration on
00:15:05
them taking away your gains after a
00:15:07
certain point unless you pay a
00:15:08
subscription like by all means you could
00:15:10
write an article on that but it has to
00:15:11
be relevant to the mission purpose
00:15:13
mission statement of the wiki and it has
00:15:16
to have been reported somewhere other
00:15:18
than by you. Yes, it has to be it has to
00:15:20
be a systemic issue.
00:15:22
Yes. One one thing I'd like to do is uh
00:15:25
apologize for anyone who hasn't been
00:15:27
confirmed and has tried to use talk
00:15:29
pages or has tried to use the mobile
00:15:31
editors. There are issues with the
00:15:33
captures in a lot of places on the wiki.
00:15:35
And this is part there's there's frankly
00:15:38
there's there's quite a few technical
00:15:39
bugs with the wiki at the moment. Some
00:15:41
of them revolving around captures. Uh a
00:15:44
lot of them revolving around anything to
00:15:45
do with the mobile experience captures.
00:15:48
uh which is that if if for anyone out
00:15:51
there if you're having trouble with the
00:15:53
captures, please reach out to me or the
00:15:55
the mod team either on the Discord or by
00:15:58
email and we can manually confirm you if
00:16:01
if you post a few times and then wait I
00:16:04
think it's 10 days you can be
00:16:05
autoconfirmed but if you if you reach
00:16:07
out to us we can manually confirm you so
00:16:10
that you don't have to deal with the
00:16:11
captures and the various bits of them
00:16:13
that are broken. We're trying to work on
00:16:15
those, but the the first thing we're
00:16:17
doing is getting the back end sorted out
00:16:20
so that it's in a sustainable way. We
00:16:21
have a we have a part-time uh person
00:16:24
who's working on that. The wiki was
00:16:26
initially set up by me, which means
00:16:28
well, you know, you're lucky that more
00:16:29
than 20% of it works. But we do have a
00:16:31
part-time systemman that I hired that is
00:16:33
slowly going through the process of
00:16:34
rebuilding this from scratch the right
00:16:36
way. And after doing all the
00:16:37
infrastructure the proper way, then
00:16:39
fixing all these little bugs. I'm happy
00:16:40
that it's improving and more happy that
00:16:42
thank God somebody else's problem
00:16:44
couldn't deal with all this Yeah.
00:16:45
So there's there's there's not going to
00:16:47
be many sort of direct bug fixes for the
00:16:50
next month and a half because most of
00:16:51
what's being done at the moment is
00:16:53
straightening out the back end. Once
00:16:54
that's all been done, the developer is
00:16:56
planning to make the wiki open source.
00:16:59
So that will allow everyone to see the
00:17:02
code, suggest ways to fix bugs. he can
00:17:05
approve them and hopefully so and he
00:17:08
sort of said expect that hopefully
00:17:10
within a month and a half and once
00:17:12
that's done we should have the ability
00:17:14
to fix those bugs quite quickly because
00:17:17
as as having a bug on a website is
00:17:19
basically the same thing as being wrong
00:17:21
on the internet and uh hopefully people
00:17:23
should be belonging to fix all those
00:17:25
yeah and he's done a great job with
00:17:27
repairwiki and helping sort things out
00:17:29
and build something so I couldn't think
00:17:31
of somebody better to do this so thank
00:17:32
you to for helping out with that and uh
00:17:35
fixing my mess. Yes, thank you very
00:17:37
much. One of the questions that I had
00:17:39
with regards to having these sources is
00:17:40
one of the concerns that a lot of users
00:17:42
have is with archiving. So archive.org
00:17:44
is a great source. However, websites can
00:17:46
file takedown notices as we saw with
00:17:48
companies like Deep Cycle Systems and I
00:17:50
had to dig through the Australian
00:17:51
archives to find it. But even then, you
00:17:53
never know if an archival website can be
00:17:54
taken down. I can just save the HTML of
00:17:56
the site, but it's also very easy for me
00:17:58
to edit that. I could take a screenshot,
00:17:59
but that can be doctorred. How how do we
00:18:01
deal with this in the meantime other
00:18:02
than just praying that archive.org org
00:18:03
doesn't take stuff down.
00:18:05
So, for the moment, it kind of is just
00:18:09
praying that archive.org doesn't take
00:18:11
stuff down. If if there's something that
00:18:12
you're concerned that you're concerned
00:18:14
about, the best bet for the moment is to
00:18:16
upload it to multiple archival sites.
00:18:18
This is something that we are looking
00:18:21
into a solution for, but it could take
00:18:23
quite some time before we're able to you
00:18:26
can't just put together an archive
00:18:27
platform overnight. Yeah. particular an
00:18:30
archive website that will not go out of
00:18:32
its way to not respect any sort of
00:18:34
copyright or DMCA takeown notices
00:18:36
because obviously a company is not going
00:18:37
to want information up relating to it's
00:18:39
one thing it's one thing for yeah it's
00:18:41
one thing to respect valid ones but yeah
00:18:43
if a company's trying to abuse the
00:18:44
system then we would be willing to just
00:18:47
sort of say no we're not actioning that
00:18:49
claim and that's something that we would
00:18:51
like to have let's say that our it's in
00:18:53
archive.org but it's not on their
00:18:55
website right now. But we need to have a
00:18:58
copy of that so for when that company
00:18:59
does file that take down notice on that
00:19:01
archive. So like an archive of an
00:19:02
archive, but on a website that we'll
00:19:04
respect if they say take down this
00:19:06
Batman Beyond clip, but that won't
00:19:08
respect Sony wants us to take down proof
00:19:10
that they screwed their users. Yeah,
00:19:12
that's that's pretty much would be the
00:19:14
ideal. Yes. Uh well, that's about it for
00:19:16
today. As always, I hope you learned
00:19:18
something. If you're watching this video
00:19:19
and you really are fired up about the
00:19:22
issues that I talk about in this channel
00:19:23
and you're like, "What can I do? What
00:19:24
can I do?" The best thing you could do.
00:19:26
So, if you go to the main page on the
00:19:28
left, you'll see articles in need of
00:19:30
work and you will have this nice list of
00:19:33
articles that are going to have stub
00:19:34
notices on them. And if you want to make
00:19:35
any of these better, great. If there is
00:19:36
a systemic consumer rights abuse,
00:19:38
keyword systemic, that is occurring to
00:19:40
lots of different people. A company has
00:19:41
a particular policy that takes away your
00:19:43
rights of ownership, changes the terms
00:19:44
of the sale after the sale, or takes
00:19:45
away your ability to use what you bought
00:19:47
and paid for. We want to know about it.
00:19:48
When you email me these issues, I
00:19:50
genuinely appreciate it and thank you
00:19:51
for emailing me and feel free to
00:19:52
continue emailing me these issues on the
00:19:54
YouTube email that is on my YouTube
00:19:55
page. However, it would be great if you
00:19:57
would also post them here because
00:19:59
instead of it just being me looking at
00:20:00
the issue, this puts tens of thousands
00:20:02
of eyes on the issue to make sure that
00:20:03
everything is cited properly, the facts
00:20:05
are there, and above all, it's not a
00:20:07
single point of failure. If you email me
00:20:09
something and I don't cover it in a
00:20:10
video, that email is dead there. But if
00:20:12
you post a story to the wiki, then many
00:20:14
thousands of other people, including
00:20:15
prominent journalists, can find it there
00:20:17
and then cover it on their platforms as
00:20:19
well. We need to get an audience that is
00:20:20
outside of this small echo chamber of my
00:20:23
YouTube channel. 2 million is not a lot
00:20:25
of people when you're talking about a
00:20:26
world of 5 to 7 billion people, many of
00:20:28
which don't understand these issues at
00:20:29
all until it personally affects them.
00:20:31
And by then it's usually too late
00:20:32
because that if it's personally affected
00:20:34
your average ordinary person by that
00:20:36
point it's likely something that's been
00:20:38
sold many times and screwed over many
00:20:40
more people which means the company is
00:20:42
successful and having a crappy business
00:20:43
model. And in the future I can think of
00:20:45
nothing more awesome than companies
00:20:47
thinking hm I would want to do that but
00:20:50
I don't want to end up on this website.
00:20:52
Like that would be my goal is the is the
00:20:54
cultural change involved because it's
00:20:55
going to be a lot of work to change
00:20:57
certain anti-consumer laws, certain laws
00:20:59
that don't allow you to break digital
00:21:02
locks and items that you bought and paid
00:21:03
for. But we really need to change the
00:21:05
culture more than everything else
00:21:06
because laws are downstream from
00:21:07
culture. And if we're not going to get
00:21:08
screwed over on a regular basis, I need
00:21:11
you to post the Consumer Protection
00:21:13
Wiki. No, no, that's that's a bad
00:21:16
acronym. I need you to post to the
00:21:18
Consumer Rights Wiki. rebranded from
00:21:20
consumer protection wiki because that's
00:21:22
a really luant
00:21:25
acronym. Anyway, so see you in the next
00:21:27
one.
