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

Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#131

Post by Blikkentrekker »

Stevvo wrote: post #60
Blikkentrekker wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't have such an issue. 8chan being dropped showed well how cancel culture works, and how in the court of public opinion one is found guilty not on evidence, but on sensationalist news articles that outright lie, sitting free from the pains of perjury and cross-examination. I have not once in my life seen this child pornography or far-right content on 8chan that these news articles claimed infested it; one woul…

8chan had the infamous /loli/ , it was dedicated entirely to child pornography. The only rule was it had to be 3D rendered or drawn/painted as opposed to photographic/video.

So not child pornography by the legal definition of U.S.A. law and most other jurisdictions.

By your definition of child pornography, i.r.c., and Mangadex also feature child pornography, as well as Google search results and most mainstream pornography websites.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#132

Post by um_ya »

dalbasal wrote: post #117

This article is a little on the surface level, but it's true. People were screaming about where platforms and digital sharecropping was headed all along... and we're here now. Youtube, which is basically digital free-to-air is even more centralised than old free to air. Youtube really is an extreme situation. They really dominate a whole medium single handedly and youtubers have shockingly little power in the whole t…

There needs to be "content as a protocol" in the same way email is.

If I don't like one email provider, I can always move to a different provider without losing access to all the user's that remain there.

If I could make a Facebook post and have it's content propagate to other providers, websites would act more like UI filters rather than gatekeepers.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#133

Post by tux1968 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #120
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a very narrow view. Take, for example, transgenders in women's sport. Do they have an unfair biological advantage over natural women? Are you a transphobe if you think so? Should you be cancelled and deplatformed if you think so? With so many potentially offensible groups, and with offense definition shifting so often, are you sure that something totally ok now won't deplatform you in 5 years?

I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone." I have seen people disagree with this opinion, but never call it immoral or transphobic. What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports b…

> I have never seen somebody cancelled for an opinion similar to "Transgender women have an inherent advantage in women's sports due to the biological advantage of their body producing testosterone."

So should a human born as a woman who happens to naturally have higher testosterone than is typical in other women, be excluded from women's sport? Of course not.

> "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men."

Really? That's offensive? The reason they have higher testosterone is because they are men. That doesn't mean we should stand in their way of living however they want, or demean them in any way. But we should not have to lie about their biological constitution as being the reason we deem it unfair. It's not their level of testosterone that makes it unfair, it's because they come by that level of testosterone by way of being a man... if a woman naturally has the same level of testosterone, it would be fair and she shouldn't be excluded.

Maybe the answer is just doing away with all gender based distinctions, have no sports leagues separated on the basis of gender at all. Of course, that has its own problems.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#134

Post by ttt0 »

throwaway35i2 wrote: post #75
throwaway45349 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4chan is a shady place, but it is definitely not a bastion of child porn. The owners do not allow anything like that.

I run a 4chan archive, fireden.net, I don't archive /b/ and my #1 reason I need to take down things is because of child porn, to the point that I honestly think about why i still run it anymore.

I suspect you'd have a similar problem if you decided to run a twitter archive.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#135

Post by smoldesu »

>"We refuse to be an accidental vehicle for right-wing, neo-Nazi propaganda. And it's really easy for fringe platforms to turn into that if you leave the doors open," he says.

Kudos where it's due for fighting fascism and all that jazz, but it does raise a pretty large concern: where do people draw the line for this stuff? A private platform like that can ultimately decide which videos they want to accept and which they want to reject, which really defeats the purpose of making your own platform in the first place. It doesn't matter if there's no content aggregation algos, since everyone consumes a homogeneous slurry of videos. Instead of preventing gatekeeping in the first place, they just changed who can open the gate.

I don't think I'll ever be very interested in a platform like Nebula, and I'm really only tangentially interested in Floatplane. YouTube will always be a dominant market because it's free and offers a functional user experience. Even if half of the people watching YouTube videos got a Nebula subscription, they're still going to be using YouTube alongside it. As long as that YouTube audience exists, people will continue to capitalize it. As long as the two platforms compete, they'll be in a constant struggle for power over their viewers. It's the definition of a lose-lose situation.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#136

Post by celticninja »

kebman wrote: post #130
celticninja wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, as I understand it was not the posting of legal content but the fact it wasn't moderated meant there was borderline stuff, calls for specific people to be killed etc, that were the key factor in them losing hosting.

And there aren't such things on Facebook or Twitter, that in fact never get taken down despite multiple complaints?

I think they have an active policy of taking them down, even if it is inefficient. Not that it should let them off the hook for that content being left up. However Parler could solve their hosting problem the same way Facebook do, which is to own their own hardware.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#137

Post by matheusmoreira »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #111
matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws. This is actually how things should work. Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Companies will delete your personal account on their platforms without even talking to you. I can't think of any case where a domain was seized without a court order. Circumventing payment processor censorship is…

> There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws. Yea? Or must mean those “alt right hosts”. Because the second someone ACTUALLY practices this, they’re themselves labeled as AltRight. See the problem? > Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Has a domain ever been seized without a court order? Ar15.com went down without warning, provocati…

> Yea? Or must mean those “alt right hosts”.

No, I mean hosts like Nearly Free Speech which has been operating since 2002. I've seen this one posted many times on HN and it seems great.

https://www.nearlyfreespeech.net/

I understand what you mean though. Since they are usually smaller hosts, they aren't used by big name companies and eventually acquire a reputation for hosting only offensive content.

> one day around the election GoDaddy made a decision to cancel them

Huh. How could they just do that? It eventually went back up right?

Do you have more examples?

> we give equal protections to anyone not breaking the law?

What do you mean?

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#139

Post by verve_rat »

graeme wrote: post #70

I follow CGP Grey’s stuff and it’s been interesting and instructive to see how he diversified. * His Youtube channel is his main platform * However, the money mostly comes from patreon subscribers, and you can also have videos delivered there * He also earns income from a podcast, Cortex * The Podcast has its own brand of sellable things, currently journals and Tshirts * He had a second podcast, hello internet, curre…

Also he has a channel on Nebula, a streaming service set up as a clear hedge against YouTube doing bad things.

He was one of the driving forces behind Nebula, but I believe he is no longer involved in running it.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#140

Post by matheusmoreira »

jcrites wrote: post #115
matheusmoreira wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are hosts out there which will host you as long as you're not breaking any laws. This is actually how things should work. Registrars won't take away your domain just because they don't like your site. Companies will delete your personal account on their platforms without even talking to you. I can't think of any case where a domain was seized without a court order. Circumventing payment processor censorship is…

Yes. There was an example on Hacker News of someone whose blog hosted by .in was shut down/seized because some freelance-style security project that detects malicious sites or botnets or something claimed it was evil. No notification or due process. I can't recall enough of the details to provide a link, but the individual posted on HN asking for help getting his site back, and eventually did. But what stuck out at m…

That's really screwed up. Do you have more details? More examples?
Post reply on HN