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

YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#141

Post by nobody9999 »

blunte wrote: post #18
seanmcelroy wrote: post #3

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,…

I suspect one big problem for Google is the ignorant politicians and lawmakers/enforcers who think that the dissemination of information which _could_ be used for illegal activities is akin to the promotion of such activities. 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. Ma…

It's not politicians or enforcers, it's advertisers.

Advertisers pay the bills, not governments. And the golden rule[0] applies.

[0] "He who has the gold makes the rules."

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#142

Post by kube-system »

syshum wrote: post #67
torben-friis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had never heard of bitchute. Going in, the first recommended video is: "A Jew asks why do people deny The Holocaust?...and admits the 6 Million figure is fake" from the account "Holocaust Lies Explained". Soo... yeah. Par for the course for "uncensored alternative" sites I guess?

Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content. That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent. You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to

And the reason those sites will never see mainstream success is because the selection bias is too strong. They all are inherently seeded by highly disproportionate numbers of users that are outcasts from other services, and that sets the tone of the community from the start.

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#143

Post by maxfan8 »

maxfan8 wrote: post #134
Ruthalas wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you archive youtube content, consider stopping by my discord server. https://discord.gg/EJvS4kf I maintain a list of content that various members have archived, such that if anything is removed, people can direct inquiries to people who have archived that content. It's a small way to keep track of what things have been successfully archived, and direct efforts toward at-risk channels. (You can see the current list…

ArchiveTeam has a larger YouTube archival effort running (on IRC, hackint/#youtube-archive) -- I think the channel list is on the order of tens of thousands. You can email me or ping me on IRC if you want to setup some coordination effort (no sense in doing duplicate work).

Correction: #youtubearchive (also, not an official ArchiveTeam effort)

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#144

Post by heyoni »

sigzero wrote: post #132
ddevault wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're free to sell software at any cost the recipient is willing to pay, at least such that it squares with your concience. However, if you don't sell the source code with it , I consider that unethical. Land is a finite resource with intrinsic value, not the same thing. So is the meal itself. Recipes are different. We have social obligations. That's what being a society is .

No, not even close. It is 100% ethical to sell software but not the source to it. It isn't a social obligation of any kind to do so. You may choose to do so but you can't force that choice on others.

Not every ethical notion needs to be legislated. I don’t think anyone is suggesting everyone enforced to publish all source code, however, not releasing source code can be perceived as unethical...or shady AF if that makes more sense.

The fact is, it may protect against piracy but practically all consumer software nowadays is doing something on your device that you wouldn’t approve of. The only realistic way for a user to know how their resources are being used would be to look at the source code.

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#145

Post by raarts »

syshum wrote: post #67
torben-friis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had never heard of bitchute. Going in, the first recommended video is: "A Jew asks why do people deny The Holocaust?...and admits the 6 Million figure is fake" from the account "Holocaust Lies Explained". Soo... yeah. Par for the course for "uncensored alternative" sites I guess?

Yes uncensored sites will have distasteful, terrible, and repugnant content. That is a GOOD thing, and a FEATURE not a deterrent. You do not defeat bad ideas, and repugnant ideologies with suppression of speech. Sorry it does not work that way no matter how much the Authoritarian Left and the Authoritarian Right would love it to

Also, to know what ideas you oppose and why, you need to be able to look into them.

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#146

Post by raarts »

nmfisher wrote: post #130
TACIXAT wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Videos are big. I have a YouTube channel and don't back my videos up. Quite the opposite, I regularly delete them to free up harddisk space. I do cross post them to lbry.tv though which I've found a lot better than peertube.

First time I've heard of lbry.tv - just curious, what's the main attraction for you?

I think they are as close to uncensorable as you can get. See https://lbry.tech

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#147

Post by iib »

akerl_ wrote: post #117
ddevault wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proprietary software is inherently unethical, so I support anyone teaching people how to pirate it. YouTube did the predictable thing, but not the right thing.

At what point in the process of making software does proprietary software become unethical? If I open a restaurant and sell food, but don’t publish my recipes, that isn’t unethical? If I make software, and I choose to offer it for money but not offer the source, what is unethical about my behavior?

If you want to see some other opinion about your exact analogy, Richard Stallman--one of the most influential thinkers of the free software world--gave an answer to the same question, at large [1].

As a summary:

- Output from a proprietary program (in this case it would be food) is not unethical.

- The _user_ must be free, not the developer. The users of the recipes are the cooks, not the customers. Cooks are free to change and distribute recipes. There is no recipe that a cook can't make, because in this case, the cook is the executant, not some computer. There are no compiled recipes.

- If there were cooking robots that would cook compiled recipes that would not be free, he would be against it, as he is with proprietary software.

[1] https://youtu.be/jUibaPTXSHk?t=914

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#148

Post by prvc »

ve55 wrote: post #13
djsumdog wrote: post #5

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…

I would go even further: Always have a local backup of anything on the Internet that is important to you, whether you made it or not, unless you know there are many other accessible versions of it for redundancy. You never know when a large company will delete it without notice. (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 heartach…

>Always have a local backup of anything on the Internet that is important to you

Also would be a nice service to others to create a backup on archive.today and archive.org, and similar sites.

Re: YouTube removed a Cybersecurity channel without much reason

#150

Post by tarruda »

ddevault wrote: post #126
akerl_ wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At what point in the process of making software does proprietary software become unethical? If I open a restaurant and sell food, but don’t publish my recipes, that isn’t unethical? If I make software, and I choose to offer it for money but not offer the source, what is unethical about my behavior?

>At what point in the process of making software does proprietary software become unethical? The start. >If I open a restaurant and sell food, but don’t publish my recipes, that isn’t unethical? No - this is also unethical. >If I make software, and I choose to offer it for money but not offer the source, what is unethical about my behavior? If software runs on the user's hardware or uses the user's data, I have a rig…

This is an interesting POV I hadn't considered before, thanks for sharing. I will share my own view on the matter.

I can see two main reasons for business not distributing source code:

The first is to prevent users from using it without paying. If someone acquires a copy of the source code, they can redistribute at will at no cost.

For some business models this might be fine, internet services being an example. "Normal" users would prefer paying for just using such services, instead of maintaining the necessary infrastructure themselves.

But what about desktop applications or other software that just runs in the user's device? If all the user needs to use the software is a download link, there would be no tangible incentives to pay for it. There are other incentives, such as helping maintain a software that is useful to you, but most users don't grasp the concept of software maintenance and wouldn't see that as a good investment.

The second reason is to prevent low barrier competition. As you said yourself, creation and distribution of software costs money, so consider this:

Software company "A" spends months developing a desktop application which it plans to sell for $30, which will be enough to get initial investment back after selling 1000 copies. Since the product is a desktop application, and the company is using a free software licence, they distribute the source code with the compiled version. In this scenario, what's to prevent software company "B" from taking the source, rebranding/recompiling and launching a competing version with the same features for $10? In a purely ethical world, everyone would do the "right thing" and this scenario wouldn't exist. In our world, incentive-based systems are used to keep chaos from taking over.

Currently I'm an intermediate Linux user and can get by with only free software, but that was not always the case. My first contact with computers happened before I was 10 when my father had brought a 386 and installed MS-DOS and later windows 3.1.

In the early 2000's I began my software development career using Microsoft technologies such as .NET and VBA. Sure Linux existed at the time, but it was much less accessible than it is today (especially to someone who mostly used MS products so far). Eventually I released myself from "Microsoft prison", but I had to use MS products in order to access the internet and acquire the necessary knowledge.

Today I wonder if the free internet would have developed so quickly if it was not proprietary software developed by "unethical" software companies and sold to end users. Free software is more ethical, but initially it was only for the technical elite at universities.

PS: I'm a big fan of your software (been using sr.ht since the start). Keep up the good work!

Post reply on HN