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

I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

gamefromscratch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#91

Post by pessimizer »

croes wrote: post #40
savanaly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Blackmail is also a thing. "take down video x or I'll strike your account" and such. That's still not blackmail. Blackmail is when you threaten to divulge information about someone unless they pay you.

The information that is divulged on is the "knowledge" about the circumvention of technical measures. "Extortion is a form of theft that occurs when an offender obtains money, property, or services from another person through coercion. A form of extortion could include the threat of physical injury, destruction of property, or improper government action." "Blackmail, in contrast to extortion, is when the offender thr…

succinct: Extortion is when someone threatens to hurt you by doing something like getting your account banned. Blackmail is when someone threatens to tell your secret. Blackmail is a specific type of extortion.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#92

Post by dang »

dERtuTOR wrote: post #90
pvg wrote: post #11

Discussed at length at the time (in 2020, 354 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23314937

Thank you very much. I've noticed that a number of different YN posts are duplicates of previous entries[1]. Metadat makes a reference to 2019 and 2020. Is this typical? Are we looking at the same post again and again? [1] “WTF Happened in 1971? | Hacker News.” Accessed May 26, 2022. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31471602 .

On HN, reposts are fine after a year or so. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#94

Post by _carbyau_ »

ziddoap wrote: post #69
dylan604 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I think two people searching for the same terms should see the same results >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.

> I mostly agree, but I can see where being located in completely different locales might lead to slightly different results without nefarious intent. Sure, I can get on board with some niche cases where tailored results are non-nefarious and beneficial to the end user. And that sort of hammers my point further, as common carrier status would make discrimination based on location a potential lawsuit.

Only if that option is not exposed. If I had a tickbox to "search local" vs "search planet" (search planet should get the same results anywhere on the planet) then I'd know exactly what is happening.

I dislike that google hides what is being done.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#95

Post by cowtools »

benwilber0 wrote: post #14

I released Boltstream [0] for exactly this kind of thing. It's not a Youtube replacement. It's a self-hosted replacement for Youtube Live, Facebook Live, Twitch.tv, and alike. [0] https://github.com/benwilber/boltstream

Interesting, but why use this over peertube?

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#96

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gaius_baltar wrote: post #58
jetbalsa wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the time, no. This is common to prevent people from abusing the system more by trying to find edge cases.

Also allows for selective enforcement of the rules, which can be welcome for "not noticing" a particular account that generates a lot of profit for the platform.

Selective enforcement is actually literally tyrany - every tyranical organisation createa rules that are vague and ambiguous, so that anyone could be guilty, and undesierable people could be charged at any time convenient.

Someone protesting? Charge them for brwaking the law fuve years ago that noone understands.

Employee speaking out? Fire them for breaking company policy on something random, company policy that no-one follows.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#97

Post by ClumsyPilot »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #74
betwixthewires wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to figure out exactly what the rules are is abusing the system now?

Running an abuse prevention system is adversarial. If your abuse detection system isn’t perfect (which is of course impossible), then having a transparent anti-abuse system is the same as not having an anti-abuse system.

Running a crime prevention system is adversarial. If your law isn't perfect (which is ofcourae impossible), then having a transparent law enforcement system is the same as nit having a law enforcement system.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#98

Post by the_af »

jetbalsa wrote: post #42
ineedasername wrote: post #31

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.

I understand why Google would choose this strategy but it's still ridiculous. This is positively Kafkian: being accused of something but not being told of what exactly.

If this was Google's The Process, Joseph K. would have been told he cannot know the exact nature of his crime, because that would allow him to subvert "The Algorithm."

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#99

Post by dERtuTOR »

dang wrote: post #92
dERtuTOR wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you very much. I've noticed that a number of different YN posts are duplicates of previous entries[1]. Metadat makes a reference to 2019 and 2020. Is this typical? Are we looking at the same post again and again? [1] “WTF Happened in 1971? | Hacker News.” Accessed May 26, 2022. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31471602 .

On HN, reposts are fine after a year or so. This is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html .

Thank you.

Re: I was blackmailed – any YouTuber could be next (2020)

#100

Post by pessimizer »

ziddoap wrote: post #38
jka wrote: post #33

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…

> The point is that the entire concept of Google is about ranking (a form of discrimination) the relevancy of websites to the search query.

Not really. All you'd have to do is make the algorithm public, and become a commodity. When you're a common carrier, you sell bandwidth, not magic fairy dust.

> Common carrier status means that a search for "Microsoft official website" would not be able to prioritize Microsoft's official website, because that would be discriminating against all other websites that claim to be Microsoft's official website (and, by extension, discrimination against the people hosting those websites, who would then be able to sue Google for that discrimination).

This is absurd. Trademark violators can't sue for not being treated like the real deal any more than I can demand that my phone company say that all of my calls come from the White House. If Microsoft backs up their claims to all be official, then they all should be able to sue.

edit:

> Common carrier status also throws a giant wrench into the already problematic issue of content moderation.

No it doesn't, it decides it for Google. And Congress would be free to allow Google to do whatever moderation it wants, and this shitty court might give it even more latitude. Count me as someone who is perfectly happy with preventing Google from doing any content moderation not required by law. All of the drive to censor has been coming from Congress and the administration anyway; the real danger in the current climate is that Google becomes a common carrier and gets the analog of the Great Firewall dropped around it the next day.

Post reply on HN