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

191–200 of 428 posts

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#191

Post by xwolfi »

celticninja wrote: post #144
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 understand your point. I am not for or against here, I am providing context. Yes it is a slippery slope argument, however it is almost unique to the United States due to free speech being enshrined in the constitution. Elsewhere free speech come with the caveat "don't be a dick", so you can say what you want e.g trans women should not compete in women's sport, but abusing trans women athletes is not acceptable.and…

Well it's not just don't be a dick, it's also "think of the consequence at every level" !

So if for instance in France I wanted to say "it's important to discuss the possibility the holocaust was an american manipulation", I m not a dick, maybe it s true it s important to discuss it, but you still have to shut the fuck up and think very deeply abt why you think that has to be said.

Most places free speech is defended, just challenged more. For instance the guy who dared say "for me, Islam is a stupid religion", got challenged in court for years but eventually prevailed: you can express your opinion of a religion. Just be sure that had to be said, cause it s gonna get expensive.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#192

Post by tux1968 »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #184
tux1968 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, but the reason they are being excluded from women's sport is because they are not seen as truly women. If they were indistinguishable from women, there would be no way to exclude them without excluding all women. So as soon as we have this discussion, we have to admit there is a difference between a transgender woman and a woman. It may be a bit clumsy to refer to them as men, but that is actually the ba…

What about someone with breasts, genitals, and other traits of a woman, but also the muscles and testosterone of a man? (I believe the common term for people like this is "intersex".) I think most people would agree they are a women, but also almost all people making the "trans women should play men's sports" argument would also think this person should play men's sports. That's because the actual dividing line is a…

I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example.

As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. When someone is excluded from women's sport because they are not a woman, it's because of their biological background, not because of their avowed gender.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#193

Post by joshschreuder »

hashingroll wrote: post #190

> There is no algorithm, they're going to be served everything you make. I am not sure how is this (lack of) feature mentioned as an advantage over youtube. Afaict there's certainly a video tab on the yt channel that displays videos sorted with time uploaded (and probably is modifiable). I understand that the point must be that people may want to not see the recommended videos, but don't most such visitors directly v…

I don't know if it's a bug or intentional, but I have absolutely had cases where the thing you're talking about (Subscriptions) either refuses to show me a new vid from a channel I'm subscribed to, or refuses to notify me when a new video is out, despite having asked to be notified.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#194

Post by JProthero »

macspoofing wrote: post #71

Why wouldn't you? It's becoming increasingly clear that you cannot trust your web presence (and by extension, your business) to one or two social media companies ... though that should have been obvious in hindsight. And I don't want to hear anything about any startup 'disrupting' decentralized tech like the web, RSS (and by extension Podcasts), or email.

I share the scepticism about the ability of startups to disrupt away the network effects that underlie these quasi-monopolies, but it does seem to me as though decentralisation is the logical and desirable end-point.

How and when that point could be reached though, I couldn't say.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#195

Post by dragonwriter »

bawolff wrote: post #90
fallingknife wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, in the case of Parler, believing that you should allow users to post any legal content without moderation. (I know they didn't lose their domain, but the effect of being denied hosting is functionally the same.)

Isn't AWS's claim that parlar was hosting illegal content? Regardless, they signed a contract detailing what they could and could not host on aws. They broke it. Its not like they were unaware of the requirements. Moral of the story, if you promise X, dont promise someone else Y if X and Y conflict. You are going to be breaking your word ine way or another.

> Isn't AWS's claim that parlar was hosting illegal content?

No, it wa, IIRC, that Parler wasn't meeting obligations under the ToS for dealing with content prohibited under the ToS when they were notified of that content, and were failing to do so for an extended period of time demonstrating either persistent unwillingness or fundamental incapacity to fulfill their obligations.

Some of the content banned by the ToSay may also have been illegal, but that wasn't the issue, and neither was the simple fact of hosting the problem content.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#196

Post by HDMI_Cable »

vl wrote: post #171
random5634 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does google make or lose money on youtube? Based on the number of ads I see, I'd imagine they break even?

Hard to say for sure, since YT uses shared Google infrastructure, and effectively cost of some things can’t be calculated. (Basically it’s much cheaper than you or me can do ourselves). But from what I understand, they burned money for many years and only very few years ago became profitable. But in some sense YT doesn’t really have to be profitable - for Google it’s more important to prop search itself, then to make…

I' m guess Google gets a ton of side benefits for having YouTube, like the usage of Google Accounts or the data they get from people's watch habits.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#197

Post by cmeacham98 »

roenxi wrote: post #162
cmeacham98 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> What I _have_ seen people get (correctly) called a transphobe for is the opinion "Transgender women should not be in women's sports because they are men." Arguing that women should be excluded from women's sport is untenable. The respectful position isn't "trans women are a special type of women where they get the pronoun but none of the privileges". It is "you're a woman".

I disagree. What about a situation where a cisgendered man prefers having sex with people that also have dicks? Typically, we would call this person gay, which we interpret as "men who have sex with men". However, this person would want to have sex with cis men and trans women, not because they're transphobic, but because their preference is based on the person's physical body.

My point with the example is that there are rare cases where treating everyone (including trans people) as their biological sex is warranted because we are talking about situations where their sex explicitly matters (i.e. usually something related to their physical body).

As to whether or not it makes sense in sports? I don't know, I haven't put much thought into it. But I don't think arguing either perspective is inherently transphobic or disrespectful.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#198

Post by znpy »

a good story about floatplane: i signed up pretty much as soon as it was announced, then i forgot about it and also forgot my password.

i was billed -very little- for a while then i opened a support ticket to have my account restored, since i had been billed for a while i at least wanted to watch some content.

but apparently something in the backend had changed and they plainly refunded me from the time i had my last login (iirc) and then they allowed me to re-signup.

it's been nice because i had then been able to re-signup and also recover some money that were pretty much lost, and i wasn't expecting that nor asking for it.

i really hope to see floatplane grow!

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#199

Post by JProthero »

swlkr wrote: post #150

The ideal platform for something like youtube would be to separate discovery from content. You host the content, and you can pick from UIs/algorithms for the discovery.

This is my view too. I'm hopeful that eventually some combination of technologies that already exist (peer-to-peer sharing, tor, blockchain, homomorphic encryption, maybe even wireless mesh networking) will evolve into a decentralised hosting and delivery system that everyone will use.

I'm woefully uninformed to speculate about how feasible this might be though, so it remains just a hope for me.

Re: Popular YouTubers who are building their own sites

#200

Post by cmeacham98 »

tux1968 wrote: post #192
cmeacham98 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about someone with breasts, genitals, and other traits of a woman, but also the muscles and testosterone of a man? (I believe the common term for people like this is "intersex".) I think most people would agree they are a women, but also almost all people making the "trans women should play men's sports" argument would also think this person should play men's sports. That's because the actual dividing line is a…

I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example. As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex. When someone is excluded from women's sport because they are not a woman, it's because of their biological background, not because of their avowed…

> I don't know of any woman has ever been denied entry to woman's sport because she has too much muscular development. Think of the Williams sisters in tennis for example.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used a bad hypothetical about muscles and should have just explicitly said "intersex people". Regardless, here's a page that documents examples of what I mean, including in high-profile events like the Olympics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_in_sports

I would like to especially draw attention to this case:

> In 1986, Spanish hurdler Maria José Martínez-Patiño was dismissed and publicly shamed after failing a chromosomal test. She fought the ruling against her, arguing that she could not have a competitive advantage because her intersex variation resulted in her having no functional testosterone. Two years later, the IAAF gave Martínez-Patiño the green light to compete again.

Note how although she has traits unambiguously associated with the male biological sex, she was still allowed to compete as a women, and as a matter of fact the argument she made was that those traits did not give her an advantage.

The point I am trying to make is that the lines in sports are not as cleanly drawn between "men" and "women" as commonly assumed. There are people who are almost universally accepted as cis women banned from women's sports for reasons similar to arguments made about trans athletes. Humans just generally do not fit easily into binary categories when looked at as a whole.

EDIT: Actually, I think this page makes my point even cleaner, without the associated baggage of "well intersex people are partially men":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperandrogenism

> In 2011 the International Association of Athletics Federations (now World Athletics), and IOC released statements restricting the eligibility of female athletes with high testosterone, whether through hyperandrogenism, or as a result of a disorder of sex development (DSD).

These people are unambiguously women, both by gender and biological sex, and are excluded from women's sports.

> As for being insensitive to call someone a "man", i think you're conflating gender and biological sex.

That is basically exactly my point. I understand, at this point, that you are referring to biological sex. However, the word "man" can refer to either, and _usually_ refers to gender. Therefore, using the term with no clarification can easily accidentally mislead people into thinking you intend the opposite interpretation that you do. It's not a big deal, but it's worth avoiding in my opinion.

Post reply on HN