I have issue with the laziness of the report regarding the Xinjiang genocide reporting. The whole article is centered on this statement: """ where UN experts and rights groups estimate over a million people have been detained in recent years. """ The UN experts and right groups are not named. But I assume it was Adrian Zenz who was throughly discredited in [1] and the so-called evidences are from satalie images analy…
YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
101–110 of 269 posts
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#102Remarkable that they're migrating to a decentralized video host: > "Fearing further blocking by YouTube, they decided to back up content to Odysee, a website built on a blockchain protocol called LBRY, designed to give creators more control. About 975 videos have been moved so far." I think this is them? I can't readily verify this (and also everything's written in Kazakh). https://odysee.com/@ATAJURT [late edit] Rel…
There isn't much info about LBRY outside of LBRY itself, though the few links i could find didn't paint a good idea.
The most concerning is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/50tyub/were_the_nerds...
I wonder why they didn't just go with some Peertube instance.
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's their platform and they can do what they want this is not true for monopolies, AT&T can't disconnect your line because they don't like what you're saying on your calls.
I’m certain they can for your Internet if they don’t like your packets. But in either situation, phone calls are not analogous because they’re 1:1. YouTube is about public broadcast. You also don’t pay for their service to host your videos.
Ideally the parent's comment is forward hopeful. As in, in the near future big tech will be shackled as Ma Bell was, and then carved up.
Several of the big tech monsters started a fight they can't win with half of the country that now absolutely hates them (and will at one time or another control vast amounts of political power), and the other half which still wants to see them restricted anyway. The question is how far the Feds and states will go in curbing big tech's abuses on eg cancel culture and content censorship, given the various monopoly positions of these companies. Florida's law on deplatforming is a small, correct first step. Texas is guaranteed to follow, and a lot more restrictions will follow after that.
The notion that they can do whatever they want with their monopoly platforms, is already probably not an accurate premise. In the near future, it will definitely not be. We're in about inning one of laying down innumerable restrictions on what big tech can do with their platforms. The odds are quite high the regulators will in fact go further than they should over time, severely damaging the US tech economy.
The free-run days for big tech are very clearly over. They're merely too arrogant to recognize it. What was the last major acquisition by Facebook? There are three other prominent US social networks out there with a collective $200b in market cap now. Everything Facebook has is very stale, boring. Instagram is a giant yawn at this point, it's old, increasingly boring and lame. Which is why young people flocked to TikTok so quickly. Facebook has been de facto barred for a long time from eating any of their major competitors. All that money piling up to the ceiling and FB can't even use it to further their monopoly, and they know it. The party is largely over, although big tech will continue to drift for a while on enormous momentum.
If Amazon were smart, they'd be in the process of spinning off AWS right now, to unshackle it from so much anti-trust attention that the parent draws, to get far out in front of that. That's guaranteed to happen within the ten or so years after the Bezos era regardless. Google could probably do the same with YouTube, but they'll aggressively fight against that (Amazon will willingly spin off AWS as their stock stagnates, in the typical unlock shareholder value move).
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#104It's sad to see big tech aligning more and more with this generation's nazis.
I guess nazis have more money this time?
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#105I had to edit my comment
[deleted]
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Q: What's the difference between fake news / conspiracy theories and the real news? A: About 8 months. Sure this joke is an exaggeration, but occurrences like this seem to be getting more common. Sometimes it's much longer than 8 months. The informed reader can fill in the blanks. One very big problem is YT and other content providers intentionally provide recommendations to reinforce confirmation biases of the viewe…
It’s past reinforcement bias and moved into picking winners.
It's the fact that the censors are there to step in for things that are plausibly true. There isn't any need to censor flat-earth theories. Nobody cares, it doesn't have any implications and it easy to disprove (eg, the fact that the horizon dips away).
The censors only get really active for things that could plausibly be true or things that are absolutely true but inconvenient to the people who control the censorship office.
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#107So the censorship on China is fine on HN while censorship on Palestine is flagged?
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#108Predictable outrage towards big tech is predictable. HN doesn't care when YouTube host thousands of videos from a human rights group with over a hundred million views. However, when they remove a dozen of them and promise to reinstate them if they blur out some PII, HN treats it like it's 1984.
What a completely facile comparison. They earn money by plastering ads over user submitted content. Hosting those videos is hardly some act of social conscience, why would they be owed praise in addition to the advertising revenues they receive.
It's hardly prescient to predict outrage when one of the largest companies in the world that wields almost unparalleled control over the information consumed by people decides to censor content about human rights abuses.
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#109No worries, Google will just sponsor a human rights award and award it to themselves to help them feel better about enabling human rights violations. They have the playbook perfected. [0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26880262
Don't know why people expect anything less from the company that fires James damper for asking questions they don't want to answer.
Re: YouTube takes down Xinjiang videos, forcing rights group to seek alternative
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Todays conspiracy is often tomorrow's orthodoxy. Society is better served by erring on the side of free speech and letting evolution decide what ideas are good and where are not. This was settled hundreds of years ago but apparently this generation did not get the memo.
I hope this isn't true. Imagine if flat earth, anti-vaccines and 911 was faked becomes "orthodoxy". We'd be a regressed society.
Flat earth is 5% idiots and some damn near remainder trolling, but the other two… what if they were right?
Obviously they aren’t.
But in this scenario, what if they were and you were part of the useful idiots covering up for someone? You would be the bad guy directly hurting society… so instead, how about a free marketplace of thoughts and opinions and allow the “orthodoxy” to be organic even if it might slightly be flawed on average (to the example we land on “no vaccines aren’t bad, but we have a lot more required testing and liability just incase”).
What makes your pet theories better than anyone else’s? Why “can’t” you be wrong?