191–200 of 451 posts
Wow. It's hard for me to imagine how he crossed any line worthy of deletion. He's one of the best Linux voices on YouTube, and seems like an incredibly nice guy. His content can be seen on Odysee[0]. Chris Titus Tech has a video covering this[1]. Honestly, I try to watch everything on Odysee these days, anyway, just to try to continue de-Googling my life. [0] https://odysee.com/@TheLinuxExperiment:e [1] https://www.y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> you can still watch them on Odysee Never heard of them, but that page looks great! Bookmarked.
It's the video/consumer frontend to LBRY, a decentralised/p2p/blockchain based publishing platform. I hope it can achieve a critical mass because it does look interesting, but I don't hear many people talking about it - even in tech circles. https://lbry.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBRY
It appears to have been banned when the author offered an illegal sweepstakes. Contests and sweepstakes are carefully regulated in America, with slightly different regimes in all 50 states. You should not run one unless you have gotten legal help with it!
Was there a warning? Was there some communication with the owner saying "Hey, what you're doing violates or Ts&Cs"? It seems like if there was, the owner would be tweeting that he disagrees with the deletion rather that completely not understanding why it happened.
Putting more humans in the loop would be more expensive, but it would help end these puzzling situations where creators don't know why they've been told to stop creating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current “ivermectin is a dangerous horse dewormer” debacle has been the biggest example of a moment where I’m not sure whether everyone is lying at this point. YouTube censored a few videos with actual experts and doctors who were discussing ivm. Yes we had issues with HCQ in the beginning, but ivm is being actually studied right now by Oxford Uni/NHS in their big covid trials in the UK… it’s amazing what a hit j…
Being studied, not accepted in use in humans for COVID. Blame the idiots injecting themselves with the actual horse versions, and the doctors/vets illigally prescribing it. IVM is as useful as eating dirt in relation to COVID, until proven otherwise with studies that aren't fabricated data or otherwise p-hacked to death - it's disinformation, and rightfully removed.
Um. No. IVM is useful or not useful regardless of whether studies have been done.
Studies are useful for finding out whether it is useful, but they do not affect the result.
If people take it now and then it turns out it's a miracle cure that halts ageing the people taking it now will have benefited. If instead it actually causes incurable cancer in five years the people taking it now are in the shitter. These things are true or false regardless of whether we know them and regardless of whether we got that knowledge from formal studies.
YouTube has been changing in weird ways in the last year or so. The amount of propaganda on the platform is ridiculous, though very frequently disguised as "news" or "educational". As someone who's been around quite a bit, I can also imagine that it doesn't look like propaganda to average Americans (I'd be glad to be wrong on this). A great deal of content is just plain sophistry too. Inspecting comments, it seems th…
Watch one "conservative news" video and it will do a complete 180. Ads for "rations", "preparing for the end of the world", "how to be self sustainable", tons of PragerU propaganda, and some of the most low quality l BS you'll ever see from political ads. YouTube delivers content based on what you've watched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This makes it highly resistant to censorship We should probably stop using this phrase as a feature Instant thought was "ok so other than this channel it's all racism"
> If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. >…the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2. You implement a basic, fixed (but can be expanded) ACL-type system based on categories such as "hacking content", "politically sketchy content", "sexual content", etc. The problem: for some of these, the definitions, the legality status and the liabilities (especially around "politically sketchy" stuff) may differ wildly between jurisdictions. And you will always have trolls mis-labeling their content on purpose…
Why Western allied nations in particular? I'm also not sure that list is as universal as you think. For instance, the no drugs thing would likely not apply to the Netherlands.
Simple: Western nations are a somewhat coherent cultural sphere.
Adding in India (with its current war against Twitter and anything that dares criticize Modi), the Arabian and other dominant-Muslim countries (women's rights, LGBT, democracy) or Russia/China (which are essentially dictatorships) into consideration would add way too much illiberality to be acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see you are getting a lot of pushback and I think its unwarranted. I agree with you, the phrase is becoming tainted. I would like a way to differentiate between places that are wary of the whims of power and places where opinions are so appalling they can't be a part of polite society. We currently talk about them the same, and there has been an uptick of the latter recently that makes being able to differentiate m…
I'm the asker of the original question, and I actually agree with you on a lot of this. As soon as I read @fragileone and @iotku's excellent answers to my question my heart sank a little at the thought of a site even more racist than YouTube. Almost every site that pops up claiming an anti-censorship position is quickly filled with pretty abhorrent content. Downvoting someone on HN for pointing it out doesn't make it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The media did themselves and the public a disservice by gluing the two theories together and blending them. Several friends - college educated, intelligent professionals - were confused enough to approach and ask me about the lab leak/release theories. The intentional lab release theory is the stuff of nonsense conspiracy theories. The accidental leak theory has always had some support but is now more widely accepted…
It wasn't really the media doing that. It was more a combination between nut heads, meme heads with their umbrella-connection and the first panic. The media just amplified it and rode the wave, as usual. And after the message was out, it was hard to turn it around. And I guess the platforms were just unable to distinguish between them, as also had more interest to wait till the nutty wave died down.
[1] - https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/06/covid-la...
[2] - https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/coronavirus-lab-theo...