11–20 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They should be required by law to allow him to download a full archive of all the videos he posted if he doesn't have a local backup, so long as they're not clearly illegal (e.g. child abuse).
Why should that be required by law?
Looks like he started a channel on a Peertube server, but it has nothing on it yet. I hope he has a backup of all his videos. ALWAYS HAVE A LOCAL BACKUP of all the content you upload to other services. Facebook is not your photo backup. All your stuff could disappear off Google tomorrow. The cloud is literally someone else's computer. The biggest takeaway for all YouToobers is to organize all their videos in a manor…
(Is this feasible? Perhaps not, but given how cheap storage is, if this could be even semi-automated, it would easily save a lot of heartache for some at many points in their life, especially in the worst cases of things like their Google accounts being banned)
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals; however, this is the position YouTube has repeatedly and is increasingly taking with striking innocent content creators sharing information about how security vulnerabilities work and how to test for them. This type of content is widely available on mainstream online blog sites, in published books, and through established,…
For example (given enough capital), is there genuinely an opportunity to build a YouTube-like platform that simply doesn't have the policies YouTube has (e.g. shares revenue more fairly, has a more-sane copyright law enforcement, explains their moderation actions)?
The idea here is that while it's true, in theory, that YouTube could make those policy changes and your YouTube alternative would then be pointless, the reality is they never will, even if it begins to cost them.
I really wish I could talk to someone more about this, or if there was targeted reading, but I haven't really found much, because I think most folks dismiss this as a viable strategy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should that be required by law?
For the same reason a storage company shouldn't be able to burn all the stuff in your unit if they evict you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should that be required by law?
For the same reason a storage company shouldn't be able to burn all the stuff in your unit if they evict you.
1. That's arson, a crime.
2. I have a contract with them (including consideration) to store my stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reason a storage company shouldn't be able to burn all the stuff in your unit if they evict you.
But aren’t they? Maybe not literally burn, but aren’t there multiple reality TV shows about repossessed storage units?
YouTube doesn't charge rent or other fees, and I'm not sure how they'd auction your digital copyrighted IP anyhow.
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals; however, this is the position YouTube has repeatedly and is increasingly taking with striking innocent content creators sharing information about how security vulnerabilities work and how to test for them. This type of content is widely available on mainstream online blog sites, in published books, and through established,…
And since you cannot without great effort educate people who are incapable or intentionally unwilling to learn, the easiest solution is to sacrifice some of your users to placate the idiots.
Maybe this is not Google's excuse, but it certainly applies to many other internet companies (craigslist for example).
Edit: typing on phone is miserable :(
It's a mistaken position to believe sharing "how to" information somehow mints cybercriminals; however, this is the position YouTube has repeatedly and is increasingly taking with striking innocent content creators sharing information about how security vulnerabilities work and how to test for them. This type of content is widely available on mainstream online blog sites, in published books, and through established,…
It would be nice if Youtube had a clear policy written in clear English (or indeed made a series of videos on the subject) explaining what's not allowed on the platform. Some channels post videos which stay up for years without any strikes or problems and then out of the blue the whole channel gets taken down under a vague "you violated our T&Cs" notice without Youtube bothering to highlight which of the T&Cs. They s…
It's true, and the way they try to hide this fact is by pretending that the censorship and policy switch-up is done in the name of "anti-racism."
YouTube & co could not have been more lucky that an entire segment of the culture came up with the perfect catch-all term to enable them to walk back their horrible business blunders.
Could be a mistake but it could also be in line with their already stated policy of removing hacking information. I don't care about the distinction you are about to make nor do I care to post an opinion on the matter. Just information for anyone passing by.
They should be required by law to allow him to download a full archive of all the videos he posted if he doesn't have a local backup, so long as they're not clearly illegal (e.g. child abuse).
But for a video site the provided content is going to dwarf the other data/metadata stored about a person/account/channel so it does make sense to separate them, and I don't see why they should be required to give over resources so you can download data that in theory you should already have. They are a content hosting service, not a content backup service.
> so long as they're not clearly illegal
That makes things even more complicated. How do they decide, given some things are grey areas almost everywhere and some things are very much illegal in some places but not others?