51–60 of 171 posts
While I definitely do sympathize, these might be alarm bells telling that we've given too much to these faceless corps. Maybe it's time to reimagine content sharing that has full uncensorable control of the creator and reach of today's centralized platforms, with a fair way to monetize.
That's 4chan.
While I definitely do sympathize, these might be alarm bells telling that we've given too much to these faceless corps. Maybe it's time to reimagine content sharing that has full uncensorable control of the creator and reach of today's centralized platforms, with a fair way to monetize.
What do you think that looks like? Youtube was initially successful because hosting video for playback in a browser was difficult and expensive. It's not difficult anymore, but it's still expensive at scale. It was not profitable and only managed to keep operating because Google bought it early on and absorbed losses for a decade. Youtube only became profitable when it started running lots of ads and using a recommen…
OK, yes I'm a somewhat bitter when I hear about stories like this. Brings me back to the iPhone App store "early" days. "early" because these problems persisted for more than 4 or 5 years... when anyone with a little bit of try could raise their app up in the rankings and send yours down in the rankings just by spamming the app reviews.
Maybe the DMCA should be changed so that takedowns only count if they're handwritten and snail mailed.
Most of them don't notice because it's DMCA bots anyways. The way I see it I have no obligation to read your mail if you have a history of just wasting my time.
I'm not in the US and probably wouldn't recommend anyone to do the same, unless they're themselves absolutely sure their legal system will have their back.
Dude you can't expect Youtube staff to help you out. The food bar is too good! Oh the massage. Oh the yoga classes. OK, yes I'm a somewhat bitter when I hear about stories like this. Brings me back to the iPhone App store "early" days. "early" because these problems persisted for more than 4 or 5 years... when anyone with a little bit of try could raise their app up in the rankings and send yours down in the rankings…
Yup. Make Youtube a "common carrier" or something similar.
I would encourage anyone who thinks along these lines to read the following posts on Techdirt, which explain why this is not the solution people think it is. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/26/this-is-really-really-du... https://www.techdirt.com/2022/05/23/11th-circuit-disagrees-w... https://www.techdirt.com/2021/06/08/conservatives-want-commo... Something should be done to ward off the Kafkaesque future we are head…
As to the first amendment concerns, OK. We tie the section 230 protections to keeping their hands off the delete key instead. There are no first amendment concerns for holding nigh-monopolist social media companies responsible for the libelous, threatening, defamatory, terroristic content they choose to host every day.
These companies are not good faith actors. It is time to stop treating them as such.
What exactly are they doing to take down the videos?
Someone is repeatedly filing “Circumvention of Technological Measures” claims, then asking for bitcoin and Twitter promotion in return for stopping the claims.
The author doesn't indicate what the supposed violation was. Does Google not even say which part of the content was alleged to be the problem?
Most of the time, no. This is common to prevent people from abusing the system more by trying to find edge cases.
If I'm understanding the attack correctly, its surprising there is not more along these lines - specifically the "trigger big tech company's automate banning against someone" attack. It wouldn't be surprising if this is fairly easy across a variety of "services"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange; what I get from those articles is roughly: - Google tailors results to users, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier - Google doesn't charge users for access, so it shouldn't be considered a common carrier - Internet search isn't a vital public service, so Google shouldn't be considered a common carrier I totally believe you that there may be reasons not to consider common carrier a magic solution, b…
> I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results I agree, but that's not the point being stated. The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query. Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would…
>I agree, but that's not the point being stated.
I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent.