Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
my question those variables aside though is less complex... hate or not hate speech , free speech or not free speech is not the issue as my question is if this is your house you have the right to do what you want in your house... I see people going into someone else's house and enjoying it for any given amount of time, for no particular reason lets say a year.... and then a year later the owner of the house changes for whatever reason cause the reason isn't even important maybe they changed their religion, maybe they changed the type of people they hang out with, maybe they want to focus more on crochet whatever it may be they don't want you in their house anymore.... do they have the right to welcome us and then unwelcome us into and out of their house.
I believe so and don't understand people thinking they can stand in someone else's house and complain about the rules that apply there... I can totally understand having hurt feelings over being disinvited from a friend that no longer likes you, but Don't understand people not understanding that friends have a right to no longer be your friend if they don't like you anymore.
This is simple. Just because a company or an individual is "private" doesn't mean their actions can't adversely affect others. There are many actions that happen on private land that have a pubic impact -- and to that degree there is a public interest in what actions private individuals or companies take even on their own land.
As just one example, if I am creating poison on my private property and dump it on my private property, I may be poisoning the people around me that aren't on my property. I might be creating conditions that will cause the property to be uninhabitable long after I left.
Basically, the only people that disagree with the general principle that society has an interest in the effect that individual actions have on other individuals are extreme personal rights libertarians. Where disagreements tend to occur is about what actions have enough impact on others to be subject to rules.
We live in a world where individuals and corporations can have enormous impact that is not easily undoable.
This is a radically different situation than it was for most of the time that moderns humans have existed. Our brains largely developed in situations where individuals might be able to grievously harm another individual or two immediately but could not have a large scale or long scale impact. As a result our social processing mechanisms (a lot of our brain is devoted to social cognition and response) are really poor at puzzling through issues and situations far orders of magnitude more complex than the types our brain is optimal at dealing with. (As a result, for instance, we do a really bad job of contextualizing rare large-scale events).
Thank you for this. I probably shouldn't anymore, but I'm still surprised to see people abusing the logic that because something/some place is private then anything goes as long as it happens within the law, as if laws were these immutable, supernatural things.
that's all fine and dandy in theory, but in practice it's a different story. I'm not anti capitalist, but crony capitalism is where this free market utopia fails miserably.
Lead paint was known to be causing brain damage in children. The lead industry did everything in its power to cover it up. As did big tobacco and big sugar. Millions dead simply due to greed.
It's not too different from an idealistic faith in the justice system, when in reality.. if you're rich you can buy your way out of any situation. Blind faith in any system rarely leads to good results.
I recommend watching a few q&a interviews with Yuval Noah Harari for a glimpse as to why free market ideals will be no match for what the future holds. The man is a visionary..
Hint: when we think we're making a choice, the algorithm will always be 10 steps ahead, and can very well manipulate us to make choices we're convinced we're making.. Chilling stuff.
well said!
I'm going to take your house analogy and run with it in a similar meandering way...
first off, I'm going to assume that there are building codes of some sort where you live. people love to moan about these, but consider the differences in death tolls in countries that have such regulations and those that don't. I don't know about you, but I don't want my neighbor's apartment falling on me because they were trying to pinch pennies.
so let's say you have your house and you can do whatever you wish in it. you bought the property and own the home. but little did you know that the air space above your home was up for grabs, as was the land beneath your home and on the sides.. so it gets bought up by a property megacorp that essentially encages your home, and build a sex dungeon under your house, a helicopter landing pad a few hairs above your roof, and a moat full of electric eels on all sides.. everythings cool right? yeah, down with regulation!
Everything we do either directly or indirectly is regulated, the real question is who should determine that regulation.
first of all palm that was funny as hell, thanks... but secondly you guys are missing the vital point of context, I thought the context of you tubing was understood and that my analogies wouldn't derail that understanding...
I'm not against regulation, I think Youtube should be able to regulate their own house... and I don't believe that youtube deciding what kind of videos get played on their network is dangerous to anybody or anybody's free speech. No one is entitled to youtube, it doesn't even have to exist, imagine if the owner of youtube decided tomorrow morning after coffee that they didn't want to have a youtube anymore and would rather have a dry cleaners... then what would all of the screaming youtubers do then. If I was a youtuber I would go to another service that wanted to play the videos I make or start my own video network and play my videos the way I want to play them, and just like youtube nobody would be able to tell me what to play because it would be mine.
again I can understand hurt feelings and venting, I do it everyday about samplr because it doesn't have panning but I am in no way disillusioned into thinking that Marcos doesn't have the right to keep samplr panning-less like he's so far seen fit to do...
there is no inherent danger in youtube cutting off all of the videos they don't like, it doesn't matter how large a company they are because the reason they are that large is because all of the people complaining about them right now are choosing to continue using them.... when exactly is it that said people are going to take responsibility for their own actions, they chose what kind of videos to make, they chose to put them on youtube instead of dailymotion, Vimeo, or any of the several others... they chose to not put it on their own network so when do they take responsibility for all of that and for most of all giving youtube the power that it has, that they are complaining about, they youtube got from them?
there's always one house in the neighborhood that everyone loves to go to, they throw great partys and everybody likes them, but what if they change their mind and don't want to party anymore and tell everyone to go home... it's their right.
I don't see how youtube not liking your videos is adversely affecting anyone.
the title of this video makes sense to me, everybody is leaving youtube. ok it sounds like it was made by someone who dislikes youtube and is leaving right.... but then they precede to not leave, that doesn't make sense to me.
The problem with that argument is we’re assuming everyone watching is a ‘responsible adult’, when of course they could be impressionable teenagers, stupid adults, adults with mental health issues, unstable adults looking for confirmation bias...that sort of thing.
We have a bit of a problem in the UK with a thing called gaslighting, where something that is false will be repeated until it’s perceived by some, as a fact. So for example right-wing groups will make videos and memes about certain races and religions, insinuating stuff that isn’t true, with an aim to stir up hatred towards those groups.
Stupid people will believe this stuff without checking the facts, others will take it as confirmation their twisted ideals were right, and the truly unhinged will do nasty things towards the targeted individuals. Bricks through windows, bombs and stuff.
The world is a bit of a sick place at the moment, so even a good concept such as free speech, can be turned into something truly horrible and dangerous, by a relatively small group of individuals.
Or governments.
There’s a big difference between free speech and actively pushing hate speech or disinformation and propaganda.
Google make the search algorithms. If they don’t want hate speech videos found easily for example they could easily do something about it.
In the UK the political parties are not allowed to advertise on TV. At all. Each of the main parties gets a free to air broadcast on the main tv networks.
This has allowed social media to massively skew elections and public opinion by targeting specific demographics and unfortunately this tends to be in the form devisive and often untrue content. It also confirms peoples’ biases. Hence the rise of nationalism and ‘populist’ leaders in many countries.
In the past this space was taken by the newspapers in the UK. The Sun has backed the winning party every election for decades. And as crappy the sun is as a newspaper, it still has to comply with strict laws. And their reporters are at least journalists (I use that term loosely!).
Social media allows bad actors to bypass the media laws and spread propaganda on a scale never before imaginable.
With great power comes great responsibility. Unfortunately for us, google et al only seem to think they have a responsibility to their shareholders.
As for content creators losing a revenue stream due to a social networks policy changes, I think that can be unfair; but the power they are giving to the propagandists is downright scary.
I understand that monzo, our political beliefs are Very similar but the reason that I keep trying to remind people that it’s not a political discussion is because it really isn’t. I think if somebody is nice enough to let you come over to their house, set up your garage/lawn sale on their front lawn that they could basically tell you to leave if they decide they don’t like what you’re selling whether it turned out to be porno magazines or vintage stereo equipment. I mean what is everybody gonna do if tomorrow YouTube changes it’s name to YouTube cooking and only wants cooking videos? Don’t they have the right to do so?
This^^ .... why is this so complex, and the YouTube content creators deleting YouTube comments from their videos is the best analogy yet!
Of course, and they do. But the rules are based on their own beliefs and interests not the public, and due to the sheer scale of their platforms bad/false stuff sneaks in through the cracks.
Information is a wonderful thing, and YouTube/Google even Facebook provide a powerful way of delivering content. The problem is the platforms can be easily abused by nefarious individuals, groups and governments.
Not all speech is free.
most businesses are based on the proprietors beliefs though. I can even empathize with the difficulty the youtubers have having to set up their wares on another network and having to find ways to make sure that their current followers know how to reach them etc... and though it can be painful especially if you decided to quit your job and become a youtuber full time imho it's still better to set up shop in a place where you're welcome. It's obvious that the people in that video and the people running youtube don't have the same beliefs but then again neither do kfc'ers and vegans...
re: not all speech is free
I hear you
And yet the law is filled with examples to the contrary. Airlines must compensate you for delays, retailers must accept returned goods, monopolies are prohibited, advertisements are regulated, and so on. When you manipulate yourself into a position of power you attract collateral responsibility. With YT, it will of course be self-regulating because people will find alternative ways to invest their creativity and YT will suffer for it. The Google business machine is gambling that it can stay one step ahead without shooting itself in the foot by alienating the wrong people.
Companies such as Apple get criticised when they restrict content in China, yet its the right thing to do if they want to operate in that country. Whether you agree with a country’s policies or not, if you do business there you must abide by their rules; you can’t force your rules on them.
There are already rules in place in every country to cover what YouTube do. the trouble is those rules are different in every country.
The internet is not an easy thing to police. Unless you go China style great firewall.
And if we are not careful, that will start to happen in more countries as governments take heavy handed approaches to prevent the very thing that got them elected from allowing somebody else to do the same. The old CCCP rulebook.
My tin hat is firmly in place :-)
i am not sure if this point was brought previously n the discussion. Those youtuber, I think feel like they can complain because their content help build YouTube to what it is today. Lets not forget the lucrative ad business that was fortified by YouTube. It generates tons of money for Google. They probably pay only a fraction to the youtuber of what they charge for a ad campaign.
Have you checked LBRY yet? I am waiting on the iOS app that is not out. I find it strange that it is not web browser accessible.
Why don't they build their own platform? Youtube can have the worst rules and if I feel that it is not for me I will go somewhere else. People tend to complain a lot about things that are not going their way instead of doing something. In the end, is easier to complain and expect things to change by just complaining and doing nothing else. I am not saying that they don't have the right to express their opinions but action speaks louder. Many great ideas are developed by people that do not agree with how things are actually being done. No company is stronger than the masses, anything can happen through the man who has the strength to go ahead doing instead of talking.
In the US the concern has to do with the protections Google receive under section 230 of the communications decency act. They basically can’t be sued for the content users post as long as they remain a neutral platform. When they start dipping their toes into regulating content, they’re acting more like a publisher and should be treated like other publishers. Conservatives have to go down this path because liberals love to use the term “hate speech” to get any speech they don’t agree with shut down. Want to talk about pro-life issues? Hate speech. Want to talk immigration policy? Hate speech. There is no legal definition for hate speech in the US and so there is no way to effectively regulate it.
@kobamoto : your analogies to a house are not apt. YouTube is not simply a house where you can visit or not visit. It is intertwined with much of the internet. So, if you use the internet, you are subject to what they serve up. If you look for information, you are subject to what they serve up.
Yes, you can go out of your way to structure your like to avoid YouTube or Google. But it isn't like a house that only has an influence on people that choose to visit.
That being said, YouTube has been more responsive to these concerns than entities like Facebook and Twitter.
If this forum actively discriminated against a sexual minority (like YouTube has been doing) because “it clashes with Audiobus’ ethics”, we would have a problem, even if right now it was completely legal.
Watch this though.
Yes you are correct.
BUT
A big but at that.
Let me ask this.
CAN SOCIAL MEDIA AND INTERNET MAKE OR
BREAK A POLITICAL PERSON?
so.....is there a politician brave enough to challenge the tech internet companies since they fear a negative SEO algorithm?
Seems like a simple issue but I don’t think it is any longer.
The markets do work things out.
When markets are not corrupted with chronie capitalism........
?
Do tell...
Did you watch the video till the end?
They are saying exactly that. THey were waiting for a proper platform to leave and it is here now.
It’s called LBRY.
I guess I’m going to quote my own previous comment to answer @tja
You need to install the app and the iOS one is not ready yet.