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

Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 803 posts

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#121

Post by vdqtp3 »

Lio wrote: post #93
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…

There are literally dozens of stories of people being jailed in the UK for tweets that are not threats or inciting violence, they're just "grossly offensive". I agree, they are almost all grossly offensive - but if you only allow speech you find acceptable, that's not free speech.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#122

Post by fortran77 »

Every time I sit down at my own piano in my own living room and record something written by a composer who died 150 years ago or more, I get a copyright strike on YouTube--often by a big label (BMI, etc). Last week it was a Robert Schumann piece, composed in 1848. The strike is still there, even though I contested it. (The form to contest it doesn't even have a good box to check for this scenario.)

I would love it if I had the resources to sue BMI for defamation (they're claiming I'm a thief) and sue YouTube for facilitating this.

They really need to make sure their music match looks for _exact_ matches for compositions that are out of copyright, to catch specific performances and not just melodic/harmonic/rhytmic matches.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#123

Post by touristtam »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #40
conradfr wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the competitor TikTok?

Yes, sometimes -- I think TikTok's content/goals are a bit different than YouTube. TikTok is a direct competitor to YouTube Shorts, but not YouTube as a whole -- YouTube also competes with Netflix and surprisingly paid course sites (did you know YouTube has courses?) I don't think it's as easy as thinking TikTok will unseat YouTube. Also, I personally think TikTok's... approach is a bit hard to sustain. Just like Fac…

> TikTok is a direct competitor to YouTube Shorts

That sounds odd since I recall them comparing themselves to IG shorts, and YT shorts not being a thing while TT was becoming the in social media; just an observation, more than anything else.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#124

Post by atemerev »

cookiemonsieur wrote: post #117
Lio wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…

> The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. But if you compare Zionism to another eerily similar 20th century europe ism, a lot of people will, indeed, complain.

Zionism is the notion that the state of Israel has the right to exist. Opposing Zionism is the call to destruction of the entire nation-state, and, therefore, a call to genocide.

(Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone).

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#125

Post by Lio »

thisislife2 wrote: post #101
kwar13 wrote: post #55

Wow. Jeff is one of my favorite creators. Google has come a long way from "don't be evil"...

That's not meant to apply to Google, it's actually a warning for its users - "Do No Evil (we are watching you)".

I always assumed it was still a Google moto but they just split it into two sentences that describe what to do in any circumstance.

“Don’t! Be evil.” :P

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#126

Post by carlosjobim »

Lio wrote: post #93
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don’t be silly. The UK may not be perfect but no one’s going to complain if you compare the Prime Minister or the King to a cartoon bear. Or you talk openly about a government fuck up. Or about one part of the country maybe deciding to become independent. You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema and you can’t say “let’s all meet at the local hotel at 3.30 and burn the immigrants to death” during a riot. I’m ok w…

In some countries you are not allowed to criticize the politicians.

In other countries you are allowed to criticize the politicians, but not their policy.

The difference is not that big.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#127

Post by righthand »

znpy wrote: post #95
kwar13 wrote: post #55

Wow. Jeff is one of my favorite creators. Google has come a long way from "don't be evil"...

By this time we should assume Google's motto is "do be evil"

I think it's more "Don't be evil[ be two-faced]".

Being evil exclusively would actually be detrimental to their company. If you're two-faced, you can say "Yes I work for Google and help harvest data for their monopoly to the detriment of humanity, but I'm a really nice person outside of work otherwise."

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#128

Post by ajuc »

throwawaythekey wrote: post #116
touristtam wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…

Isn't it obvious that (2) in practice entirely negates (1)? In Australia we recently had a proposed law to prohibit information that "potentially undermines faith in the banking sector" regardless of truthfulness.

It's very hard to find a law without exceptions.

It's forbidden to kill people. But if you are defending yourself it's not. And if you're a soldier you are indeed required to kill.

It's forbidden to break other people's property - but if you're trying to save somebody's life you can break a window to get to them.

It's illegal to capture and keep people imprisoned. But state can put you in prison no problem.

Etc.

Freedom of speech was never intended to be the only fundamental rule of the society. It's one of many. Being fundamentalist about it is harmful.

In particular what is harmful is abusing it to circumvent other, reasonable rules. In USA the reason oligarchs can pay politicians for their campaigns is because it's classified as "free speech". This is corruption on the highest level of the state legalized with idiotic excuse. It's illegal in most democracies, and for a good reason.

Another example is spreading hate campaigns against minorities. We know what happens if you allow this to go on. We've seen 1930s. We have laws against it - but only for traditional media. Internet is a way to circumvent these rules and good practices.

Just like radio was a way for to-be-totalitarian-rulers to circumvent the establishment in 20s and 30s.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#129

Post by NilMostChill »

touristtam wrote: post #106
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> has continuously curbed free speech over the past few decades mmm do you have example at hand or you are just repeating this in the hope that other with voice the same opinion? The UK has a freedom of expression law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part... 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart informati…

I'm not who you were asking but i can provide a specific encroachment example.

The anti-protest law update that was passed over the last few years specifically (using the law) curbs the ability to protest freely in public spaces.

It's technically lawful and curbs expression from what it was previously, the same way they are doing it in general, by adding additional laws (or clauses to existing laws) that are intentionally vague so they can make it fit whatever definition they like after the fact.

I'm aware that the legal system is partly based on judicial interpretation etc, but these are so much more vague than previously.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with it, it still curbs freedoms.

incidentally, i think it might have recently been overturned (or has at least been challenged successfully) but the point is , the government pulled some legal shenanigans to curb expression.

another example of the vagueness would be IR35 legislation, again, not debating the pro's and cons, just saying the law is purposely vague when actual guidelines could be provided.

Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube

#130

Post by slg »

KurSix wrote: post #76
w14 wrote: post #59

This is the problem I had with all the content removal around Covid. It never ends with that one topic we may not be unhappy to see removed. From another comment: "Looks like some L-whateverthefuck just got the task to go through YT's backlog and cut down on the mention/promotion of alternative video platforms/self-hosted video serving software." This is exactly what YT did with Covid related content. Here in the UK,…

Once you normalize vague enforcement around "problematic" content, the net just keeps widening

These slippery slope comments always seem a little naive to me because they imply there is some pure way to handle moderation. In practice, you have to be an extremist to think literally no content should be removed from Youtube with the most obvious example of something nearly everyone wants to be removed being CSAM.

Maybe you would respond by saying that is illegal and only illegal content should be taken down. According to which laws? Hate speech is illegal some places, should that be removed? What about blasphemy?

Maybe you would suggest to closely follow the local law of the user. Does that mean the site needs to allow piracy in places that is legal? And who decides whether the video actually violates the law? Does the content have to stay up until a court makes the final decision? Or what about content that is legal locally, but might be under some restrictions. Should Youtube be obligated to host hardcore porn or gory violence?

There needs to be a line somewhere for normal people to actually want to use the site. I'm not going to claim to have the perfect answer on where that line should be, but there is always going to be an ongoing debate on its exact placement.

Post reply on HN