He has a point. Why would he want his "performance" to be featured on proprietary video formats or platforms? Even ignoring the proprietary part, he'd basically provide exclusive content to yt without compensation.

Speaking of which, maybe he could address Github blocking indie search crawlers.

> Why would he want his "performance" to be featured on proprietary video formats or platforms?

Maybe so that he could reach a larger audience.

His reach is large enough at this point I guess. Maybe he also makes a living from giving talks, which he'd undermine by being on yt.

I don't understand this reference, can someone explain it to me? (The Javascript part)

According to the English language article https://www.zdnet.com/article/free-software-advocate-richard...,

'According to Segala, Stallman requests no video feeds in "places using proprietary JS."'

Therefore, we see that his concern isn't about the language of implementation, but whether it's proprietary or not. So you could write a FOSS web video player and post a video of him there, but he doesn't want to be on YouTube since I can't say "well, this video player would be much nicer if..." and then do that.

Just love Stallmans criteria for nontrivial JavaScript programs, basically every JavaScript program is nontrivial.

And it is okay to enable JavaScript temporarily so you can send a complaint to the website operators that they should remove JavaScript.

He means don’t upload it to YouTube as they use a proprietary JS player.

That's more about the content hosting on the platforms that push their proprietary js code onto the users.

The basic ideas against these platforms are expressed in the AGPL license.