Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 449 posts

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

#381

Post by KirinDave »

root_axis wrote: post #376
KirinDave wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not true. Almost all modern speech doesn't take place on Youtube or any Google platform. It's possible to broadcast without Google, publish without Google, disseminate without Google, gather without Google, dissent without Google, make phone calls without Google, chat, email, text, audio, video, everything - literally all forms of speech and expression are possible without Google, both on and off the internet. I ac…

Why do they have to be a "genuine contender"? I get that the discoverability of YouTube's platform is desirable to creators, but why is it important at a societal level that creators have access to that?

What will ultimately determine if Youtube is a monopoly or not is if there are credible contenders of similar size that aren't just reselling Youtube with a branded player.

The public demand itself is enough. Search for Google is already subject to regulation in the EU.

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

#382

Post by anm89 »

I could almost see this being an attempt to try to back people off from encouraging them to moderate. Pick something that they can make a very plausible claim to be doing for "public safety" but that they know will cause an uproar from respected voices in tech for being counter productive. Then they can faux throw their hands up in the future and say, "it's in everyone's best interest for us not to moderate".

I'm not really saying strongly this is the case, it's a bit tin foil hat, but I wouldn't be shocked if it was true either.

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

#383

Post by root_axis »

KirinDave wrote: post #381
root_axis wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they have to be a "genuine contender"? I get that the discoverability of YouTube's platform is desirable to creators, but why is it important at a societal level that creators have access to that?

What will ultimately determine if Youtube is a monopoly or not is if there are credible contenders of similar size that aren't just reselling Youtube with a branded player. The public demand itself is enough. Search for Google is already subject to regulation in the EU.

A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

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

#384

Post by KirinDave »

root_axis wrote: post #383
KirinDave wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will ultimately determine if Youtube is a monopoly or not is if there are credible contenders of similar size that aren't just reselling Youtube with a branded player. The public demand itself is enough. Search for Google is already subject to regulation in the EU.

A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

> A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

This isn't strictly true even in America, and it's worth noting that every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

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

#385

Post by root_axis »

KirinDave wrote: post #384
root_axis wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product.

> A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product. This isn't strictly true even in America, and it's worth noting that every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned.

> every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

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

#386

Post by KirinDave »

root_axis wrote: post #385
KirinDave wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A monopoly is only illegal if YouTube is using anti-competitive practices to stifle competition. It's not illegal if people just prefer YouTube's product. This isn't strictly true even in America, and it's worth noting that every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning.

It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned. > every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning. So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

> It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned.

I think maybe the problem here is that you're assuming that "active" interference needs to take place. All you need to do to hurt competition is set your monopoly-backed prices too low for other competitors to match and if you lack any competition, you're not stifling it.

> So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

Right, but that means "I am innocent" doesn't constitute an ironclad defense. Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

And I think the ugly part about this is that YouTube actually does an amazing and in fact peerless job on the technical side. I know how a lot of it works and it's breathtaking.

But that's part of why they can set their price for hosting at $0/byte. And that's hard for anyone at a less superlative scale to compete with.

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

#387

Post by root_axis »

KirinDave wrote: post #386
root_axis wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned. > every sanctioned monopoly in American history has tried to use this line of reasoning. So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mean that innocent people don't exist.

> It is strictly true as far as the law is concerned. I think maybe the problem here is that you're assuming that "active" interference needs to take place. All you need to do to hurt competition is set your monopoly-backed prices too low for other competitors to match and if you lack any competition, you're not stifling it. > So what? That's like saying "every criminal has claimed they were innocent". It doesn't mea…

> All you need to do to hurt competition is set your monopoly-backed prices too low for other competitors to match and if you lack any competition, you're not stifling it.

YouTube has stayed the same price since it was created, long before it became a monopoly.

> Right, but that means "I am innocent" doesn't constitute an ironclad defense. Which is the only point I'm trying to make.

Obviously. My point is that you haven't shown any examples of YouTube abusing its monopoly to stifle competition, thus the argument that they are in danger of violating anti-trust laws does not seem to be correct.

We both agree that YouTube has the largest market share, but can you explain to me why you believe YouTube's market share is the result of anti-competitive practices and not a result of a superior product?

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

#388

Post by ccrush »

sinjid wrote: post #279
kdbg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll actually be a counter example to that, I recently started a security podcast with a couple friends, talking about the latest in exploit development and mitigations, and whatever news we find interesting. Shortly after we uploaded our 4th episode we were banned on Youtube. We appealed the ban and were allowed back on pretty quickly (hours) and we are by no means a large channel even now (~50 subs).

What's the name of your channel? :)

Right? I want to sub.

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

#389

Post by month13 »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIdZ2oPyB1Y

Counterpoint; LiveOverflow (also a channel on YouTube featuring reverse-engineering) had this to say on the manner, in very broad strokes, YouTube monetization, and hosting, is a luxury and they as a private org can choose what or what not to host.

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

#390

Post by kdbg »

sinjid wrote: post #279
kdbg wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll actually be a counter example to that, I recently started a security podcast with a couple friends, talking about the latest in exploit development and mitigations, and whatever news we find interesting. Shortly after we uploaded our 4th episode we were banned on Youtube. We appealed the ban and were allowed back on pretty quickly (hours) and we are by no means a large channel even now (~50 subs).

What's the name of your channel? :)

Day[0] - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXFC76FDHZRVes6_lZqwLBA

We are not putting out any new episodes right now though, I'm currently off on a long-distance hike.

Post reply on HN