391–400 of 449 posts
I've noticed quite a few free software enthusiast posting their content to LBRY[1]. Doesn't seem like a perfect solution for every type of video getting messed up by YouTube lately, but I think infosec could find a good home there. [1] https://lbry.com/what
Its more "decentralized crypto blockchain" nonsense. Nope, nope, and just nope.
The problem here is that "hacking techniques" to a black hat are also, equal-and-oppositely, legitimate security research and prevention -- to a white hat / security researcher / ethical hacker... In other words, they're aspects of the same thing... The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound... We don't ban videos on electricity or ele…
Uh, guns?
The problem here is that "hacking techniques" to a black hat are also, equal-and-oppositely, legitimate security research and prevention -- to a white hat / security researcher / ethical hacker... In other words, they're aspects of the same thing... The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound... We don't ban videos on electricity or ele…
> The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound Uh, guns?
The problem here is that "hacking techniques" to a black hat are also, equal-and-oppositely, legitimate security research and prevention -- to a white hat / security researcher / ethical hacker... In other words, they're aspects of the same thing... The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound... We don't ban videos on electricity or ele…
> The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound Uh, guns?
- Their primary purpose is to inflict harm.
- The harm caused is potentially / easily lethal.
- Their existence escalates nearly all situations.
- They're dangerous items that can very easily cause accidental harm.
Maybe, PornHub will be the best website for “hacking techniques” video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound Uh, guns?
If you meant to stay on topic (reads like a tangent), I believe firearm videos are still kosher on Youtube. Look up FPSRussia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or banning gun videos because they could teach someone how to shoot up a school. It’s no surprise YouTube opted not to censor this genre based on their workplace shooting incident. Companies are getting more and more paranoid these days.
Big advertisers dictate what content is allowed on YouTube. Corporations like Disney and Coca Cola get to decide what we can watch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that you're going to ban something because one aspect of it has a negative social purpose is philosophically unsound Uh, guns?
We're not banning knives though, are we? Guns are different, and they're banned for the same reasons that, say, carrying around a bioweapon is banned. - Their primary purpose is to inflict harm. - The harm caused is potentially / easily lethal. - Their existence escalates nearly all situations. - They're dangerous items that can very easily cause accidental harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't be so pessimistic. There are still plenty of resources and places to discuss whatever you want. Youtube is like that big commercial avenue in the city, where you can only see mainstream stuff. If you look for the bookstore that has hacking/engineering/pyscology books, you'll have to go elsewhere. But it has always been this way.
YouTube used to be that place.... I remember it, I want that YouTube Back... YouTube did not become popular with "mainstream stuff" if I wanted "mainstream stuff" I would still be a cable TV Subscriber YouTube promoting only "mainstream stuff" like CBS, and CNN will kill YouTube
Given CNN'S dwindling ratings I sincerely doubt that. If anything youtube needs to rescue them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest? If you intend on redefining it in a way that takes away property rights, then I won't support it and neither should you.
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".
Youtube has always blocked porn. Youtube has had a other restrictions as well, for example at first all videos had to be under 10 minutes. In response to criticism of disturbing videos of children, youtube deleted 150k videos of children in disturbing situations[1]. Read the guidelines from 2009[2], there's various things banned there that aren't illegal.
[1] https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/blakemontgomery/youtube...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20091114041327/http://www.youtub...