Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by fer » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:21 AM UTC

yard2010 wrote: post #159

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #13

I like the way Jeff signed off the article, pointing out that whilst the video has been pulled for (allegedly) promoting copyright infringement, Youtube, via Gemini, is (allegedly) slurping the content of Jeff's videos for the purposes of training their AI models. Seems ironic that their AI models are getting their detection of "Dangerous or Harmful Content" wrong. Maybe they just need to infringe more copyright in o…

Gemini doesn't need his video as train data, google can just torrent any content and use it as training data, just like facebook.

Uh? Veo 3 is arguably the result of owning YouTube and tapping into its content. No need to torrent much if you store the largest amount of footage on Earth.

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

#232

Post by tumult » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:21 AM UTC

hardwaresofton wrote: post #14

> In that case, I was happy to see my appeal granted within an hour of the strike being placed on the channel. (Nevermind the fact the video had been live for over two years at that point, with nary a problem!) Looks like some L-(5|6|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. Quick appeal grant…

> Quick appeal grant of course, because it was more about sending a message and making people who want to talk about that kind of software think twice before the next video.

That was talking about a previous video, not the one that is the main subject of this blog post. For the video that is the subject of this blog post, which is just about running your own software to watch media you legally own, the appeal was apparently denied.

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

#233

Post by PaulKeeble » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:22 AM UTC

KurSix wrote: post #72

YouTube's moderation feels like it’s being done by a drunk Roomba half the time... totally missing context, especially when it comes to open source and self-hosting content. Meanwhile, there's a flood of actual piracy tutorials that stay up for years. Your video gets flagged for showing people how to use LibreELEC, but somehow there are entire channels pushing borderline NSFW content under the guise of "body art" or…

The entire thing is being done by an algorithm by Google and the various legal groups that scour youtube for infringement. The review process is equally automated as well. Google seems perpetually allergic to having humans involved at any point and so it continues to compound the mistake the algorithms make by making them unfixable.

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

#234

Post by komali2 » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:22 AM UTC

AStonesThrow wrote: post #174

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The DMCA is a morally bankrupt law whose only purpose is to engage in economic protectionism. You know it, the media industry knows it, Congress knows it, and so does everyone else. Citing it as an example of why the content is "dangerous" or "harmful" is a very poor argument indeed.

This is such a terrible fiasco. You know, I chose to criticize the one video that Jeff singled out as offending. And Jeff has a lot of great content on his channel. Jeff has good and fun DIY projects. Jeff has also said that he is supporting his family, feeding his children, paying for health insurance and medical bills with the earnings from YouTube. This is a legitimate line of work, and Jeff is honestly doing what…

Seems like you're arguing that Jeff wouldn't make money from his channel if the DMCA simply didn't exist at all. I think that's a bit of a stretch. We were discussing his ripping of Bluray discs, which is why DMCA is mentioned.

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

#235

Post by thrance » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:24 AM UTC

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #225

shakna wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also suppress videos on the correct manufacturing process for plastic explosives. Not because doing it safely is a bad idea, but because proliferating bomb making materials is. Covid disinformation got people killed. It will continue to get people killed, especially with a proponent of it leading the US health service. Things likely to lead to death, are likely things you do not want on your platform.

> Covid disinformation got people killed. If they trust bad medical advice on YouTube and die, it's their problem.

No, it's everyone's. Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. Also, and I know basic empathy is a foreign concept nowadays, but what if I wished for my fellow to not die of a preventable disease because a grifter sold them on an insane idea?

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

#236

Post by thrance » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:25 AM UTC

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

No it doesn't. I reject your slippery slope fallacy.

The line must always be drawn somewhere, should YouTube allow neonazi content because any censorship leads to more censorship? Of course not.

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

#237

Post by ndsipa_pomu » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:26 AM UTC

Duwensatzaj wrote: post #155

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…

I agree that comparing the UK to the PRC is ridiculous, but you seem to have missed that UK policing goes far beyond your example. Hamit Coskun was arrested and convicted for burning a Quran, reintroducing blasphemy laws but only for Islam. Multiple cases of people being arrested for silently praying around abortion clinics. Arrest and conviction for dressing up as the Manchester Arena bomber for a private Halloween…

You are being incredibly disingenuous and missing out the very important points that ALL of those instances were designed to be provocative and make people feel in fear for their own safety.

e.g. the people being arrested for silent praying (wasn't it just two people?) were breaching specific PSPOs that are specifically designed to provide a safe buffer zone around abortion clinics so that people can receive their health services (i.e. abortion and related services) without fear of being harassed. By stating "silent praying", you make it look as thought they weren't being deliberately provocative in order to make a protest - the exact type of thing that the PSPO is designed to protect against.

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

#238

Post by ndsipa_pomu » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:27 AM UTC

vdqtp3 wrote: post #121

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…

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.

Please share some links to a handful of these cases

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

#239

Post by huijzer » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:27 AM UTC

thrance wrote: post #230

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whats so special about anti covid desinfo rules? - The magnitude of content involved. - The fact that there exists a significant part of the society which is vocal about not endorsing these particular deletions. - The fact that many people became aware of the moderation ("censorship") that YouTube does and its power. - The fact that these COVID information videos (despite being perhaps wrong) formed important patte…

[flagged]

> I'm really tired of people hiding behind free speech and "but what if someone had something important to say!".

But who is going to decide what we are allowed to say and what not? We all know “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. It’s very easy for someone to “manufacture consent” if you can take all the opponents out.

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

#240

Post by bendigedig » Fri, Jun 06, 2025, 9:28 AM UTC

kassner wrote: post #187

gloosx wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would not be an easy one to swallow but I don't have a false expectation that these accounts are mine in any sense. They are Google's, and I'm just renting it paying with my personal data to feed the AdSense machine. Any day they might decide to do what they want with it, there might be a bug or a technical issue which will lock me out, and I doubt I would have a single way to influence it, the customer care or user…

I can control my own digital life, but I don’t have the resources to do the same for every family member. An old age family member owning Android devices for a decade is virtually impossible to untangle from Google.

I installed e/os on my phone the other day and haven't encountered any serious drawbacks yet.