In 2017 Windows users were pushed to “update” their system to Windows 10. Many users were very surprised to discover that the free video editor that came with all of the previous windows versions was missing. Windows removed MovieMaker the free video editor that many people depended upon to make videos. When users complained to the software giant, they were directed to the app store. Unfortunately, there were no equivalent free version available.
At the same time that this was going on, YouTube decided to remove their free video editor.
It was a simple program but effective enough and many people used it. There were many users begging YouTube to keep their free editing software available, but YouTube pulled the plug and did not offer a free alternative.
The end result is that free editing software was coincidentally taken away from people at around the same time in 2017. This most adversely affected lower income users who did not have extra money to purchase video editing software from 3rd party retailers.
The fact that Windows 10 was actually a downgrade rather than an upgrade when it removed this popular video editing tool, begs the question – why? Also, why didn’t YouTube replace its video editing tool? Some claim that no one used YouTube’s free video editing software. This is untrue according to the many messages posted to YouTube asking them to keep it.
Why did Microsoft and YouTube remove the two major free video editing tools at the same time? While some people were able to quickly download MovieMaker and add to Windows 10 after the “update” some less computer savvy may have missed the boat.
This move by Microsoft and YouTube prevents lower income users (read: majority of the world) from being able to express themselves by making effective videos to post on YouTube for free. The removal of free video editors is most likely motivated by pure greed. They want to throw some money to video software companies. This squeezes the cash from people who are struggling to get by. This can also be viewed as an attack on freedom of expression. It seems that if freedom of speech cannot be curtailed by government sanctions, then making it unaffordable is another workaround.