YouTube's ban on “hacking techniques” threatens to shut down infosec YouTube

Post by geggam » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 3:58 PM UTC

lpcvoid wrote: post #314

dalbasal wrote: post #273

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…

>But, while they monopolize their areas... they probably create negative value. I think Facebook is already creating negative value.

Post by CraneWorm » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

mikro2nd wrote: post #332

CraneWorm wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WTH, don't keep that stuff on YT.

Well,... for some people that seems to be the easiest way to distribute it to the whole (widely dispersed, extended) family. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Post by pluma » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

rehasu wrote: post #263

cuillevel3 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same with Github, sure you can host on your own domain, but "search for voctoweb on Github" is so much easier than "oh just go to my homepage at sdkljfsdl.sdf".

If you use google instead of github search you can find it even if it's on a self-hosted gitlab, though. And since both use git as API nobody is stopped from forking from gitlab to github either.

Post by yepguy » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

rv-de wrote: post #290

patrickaljord wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vimeo recently banned Project Veritas (which is still up on youtube), Alex Jones and plenty of other channels. Not sure it's a less censuring alternative.

I think every platform has the right to censor and also the duty to do so. Like gore or cp etc. This shapes a profile for a platform. In vimeo's case they distanced themselves from some conspiracy theory fanatics which is fine with me. Meaning I endorse that profile as a visitor and who doesn't just needs another platform. And one reason why those outlets (like Alex Jones & Co.) often aren't accepted around for long…

Post by rv-de » Thu, Jul 04, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

yepguy wrote: post #337

rv-de wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think every platform has the right to censor and also the duty to do so. Like gore or cp etc. This shapes a profile for a platform. In vimeo's case they distanced themselves from some conspiracy theory fanatics which is fine with me. Meaning I endorse that profile as a visitor and who doesn't just needs another platform. And one reason why those outlets (like Alex Jones & Co.) often aren't accepted around for long…

Do platforms have the right to collude with each other to deny service to a particular individual? Even if you think Alex Jones is a crazy person (and he is), you should still condemn Apple, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube for attempting to remove him from public discourse. If anything, it only made his crazy conspiracy theories seem more credible.