291–300 of 449 posts
Has everyone forgotten that you can easily just host your own website and throw up whatever video content you want there? I can’t imagine creating a ton of educational content and then having it all depend on the whims of a single platform. This is not the end of infosec or hacking videos.
Its much much much more expensive to host video content than anything else.
The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating. I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. The discovery problem is an illusion. If you build it, they will come.
>I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. There are decentralized/open/ethic friendly services alternative to big corporations services. In the case of Youtube there's PeerTube[1] for exemple (even if in that case there's a IP leak due to the p2p protocol if I remember correctly). The sad thing here is that people decid…
That would probably work here until YouTube move on to "can't signpost content that's not allowed here".
The internet promised so much, but is being ruined by corporations and governments. I can't help but feel the ruining is accelerating. I hope the infosec community can come up with some kind of decentralized way to actually share free speech. If anyone is capable, they are. The discovery problem is an illusion. If you build it, they will come.
giveth and taketh. Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and to…
Could you give some examples of this, please?
then they came for the altright, and I did say nothing because I didn't like the alt right content
then they came for the historical channels for they talked about the rise of fascisms and I did say nothing because I was thinking of the easily influenced children
then they came for the technical content, and there was no one left to speak for me
Earlier quoted context omitted.
YouTube is less and less about You.
It's like they've got too much content anyway, so why not just start banning stuff?
Social media sites which depend on user supplied content use that content to advertise the platform. Maybe no one told Youtube content creators that they were really doing sales work for Google, but that's always been the nature of the modern social media model. They don't work for you, you work for them.
TANSTAAFL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, it's not protected by YT's definition.
Yeah, YouTube's definition is self serving, and breaks apart for many important use cases. Their real definition is "we allow/block whatever makes us look good in the court of public opinion", and to think they have any real definition beyond that is a fallacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not just this isolated case. Youtube changed their terms and conditions in such a way that affects all educational content related to infosec, more info in the other HN thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20346865
To be fair, it's reasonable to forbid instructions on how to attack specific online third-party systems, just that the phrasing of YT's policy is too ambiguous and can be extended to any educational infosec content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
giveth and taketh. Google/YouTube/FB/etc made the web more accessible, fun and useful to normal people. The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. YouTube, for example, got online video bigger/better/faster by doing centralisation, flash & such. After they win though, they effectively become squatters. YouTube or FB could go offline today and to…
>The profit motive was great for cutting through the more idealistic 'open web's" occasionally stubborn^ roadblocks. Could you give some examples of this, please?
..FB also, photos of their grand hildren was the reason a lot of people got online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about a trade-off, something like: In order to receive "Safe harbour" copyright immunity for uploaded user content, you have to have fairly lax rules on content (e.g. only blocking actual criminal content, which is all youtube have done before this, right?). If you want to significantly curate your content, you can't hide behind the legal protection of "uncurated user content".
> If you want to significantly curate your content, you can't hide behind the legal protection of "uncurated user content". Is YouTube gaining some benefit from pretending to be an open platform? I'm not sure what you're saying here. Likewise, isn't copyright infringement is a criminal offense?
Youtube currently benefits massively from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_... as they are not directly liable for people uploading content they don't own.
I'm suggesting that we only let people have that immunity if they aren't significantly curating their content.
If they significantly curate their content, they should be able to curate copyright too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Discoverability is the issue. I wish there was an established way to discover content regardless of the platform it’s hosted on.
Google search, reddit, HN, social media of various sorts? There's a ton of discoverability out there. Youtube is not the only path