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

241–250 of 803 posts

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

#241

Post by elric »

fortran77 wrote: post #122

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…

The lack of (legal) recourse (in practice, if not in theory) against large multinational monopolists like YT is the real problem here. Imagine if a policeman came to your house every time you played the piano to fine you for nonexistent copyright infringement. That cop would be unemployed in very short order. You could take all sorts of against them, and there are protections in place to prevent such abuse of power.

Not so with YT. You have fuck all recourse against the arbitrary and often incorrect decisions of whatever they call this ridiculous attempt at moderation. It is incredibly difficult to even talk to a human being. You'd be hard pressed to find a lawyer who could help you in this. Let alone a judge who would spend time on this only to tell Google the obvious truth: "the composition is out of copyright, stop being ridiculous". They'd go back to making the same mistakes immediately.

My personal take on this is that it needs to be easier to talk to humans, to contest decisions, and to have humans in the moderation loop BEFORE handing out copyright strikes. If that means YT is no longer profitable, so be it.

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

#242

Post by fer »

sph wrote: post #158
qilo wrote: post #63

I purposefully avoid demonstrating any of the tools (with a suffix that rhymes with "car") that are popularly used to circumvent purchasing movie, TV, and other media content, or any tools that automatically slurp up YouTube content. Can't figure out what tool Jeff is writing about.

Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker: - QBittorrent: torrent client - Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent - Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file - Radarr: the same as above, but for mo…

> Pair everything to a €5/mo torrent-friendly VPN

Or a usenet subscription + sabnzbd, and you get direct download speed, plus the extra protection of a (nowadays) arcane technology that's too hard for legislators to understand.

Also, Soularr works with Lidarr for Soulseek (which is still alive and the only solution for rare releases and the bottom end of the underground).

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

#243

Post by chris12321 »

atemerev wrote: post #124
cookiemonsieur wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

No state has the right to exist, that thought terminating cliche makes no sense legally or philosophically. States are recognised by other states, with no legal rights involved. Also claiming that a call for the end of a state is a call for genocide is ludicrous, if that was the case then every revolution in world history would be a genocide.

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

#244

Post by thrance »

Latty wrote: post #156
anonymousiam wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's always funny seeing Americans who have clearly got their news about the UK from questionable sources telling us how actually we live in a dystopian open-air prison. In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process, but the UK is the one close to a loss of freedom of speech because checks notes you can be convicted in a court…

[flagged]

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

#245

Post by LinXitoW »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #220
slg wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Acc…

The problem is the nature of YouTube, which is a platform with the main purpose of generating revenue based on advertisement while minimizing their own operational risk. YouTube does not care one bit about whether the content they show is informative, harmful or entertaining, they care about maximizing the amount of ad impressions while avoiding legal repercussions (only if the legal repercussions carry a significant…

I mean, this is just capitalism.

And while I loved old forums, they were constantly fighting with being underfunded, there was infighting between the "owners", and each one worked differently, making them a bunch of disconnected little silos.

Especially compared to Youtube, there's just NO WAY IN HELL any non-exploitative company could ever finance a project of even remotely similar scope. There are already, right know, alternatives for all the big monopolists. Most people aren't using them because they don't like the trade offs.

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

#246

Post by b800h »

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,…

What confuses me is how TV App providers are going to make this work. How is the interface going to work to allow me to use YouTube on the TV whilst checking my age, and ensuring that it's me using the TV each time it's turned on? And how is a TV different to a computer? It's completely impractical.

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

#248

Post by peterclary »

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.

Even if you don't care about those people, what about the people who would be affected by them? A would-be bomb-maker might only blow themselves up, or they may kill many in a crowd. Somebody walking around with a deadly pathogen infects and kills others. Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense. Individual freedom ends at the point at which it causes real harm to other people.

Also, you know who tends to be most in favour of "let stupid people face the consequences of their poor choices"? Those who want to profit from those people and their choices.

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

#249

Post by Am4TIfIsER0ppos »

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…

[flagged]

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

#250

Post by cornholio »

efitz wrote: post #227

This is reason #597 why you just don’t allow platforms to censor. If a site wants to be a publisher, by all means, be a publisher, and don’t monetize user content. If a site wants other people to provide the content for free, then sorry- no censorship for you. “Community guidelines” etc are just censorship with a nicer name. “The algorithm” is just opaque censorship by making content undiscoverable. “un-content” in O…

If you try to build that platform, you will get swamped by far right content, people casually suggesting how one could hypothetically obtain child porn if they had such illegal and immoral proclivities, and so on.

You will then be boycotted by everyone, from your payment provider and advertisers to your more mainstream users, in a self-enforcing spiral until only unsavory content exists on your platform; nobody will lift a finger to help you, let alone offer you legal protection against such attacks. When you eventually run out of server money, the child pornographers will just move on to greener pastures.

Everyone censors because everyone is a business and they want to maintain their content inside the Overton window where revenue is maximized and it's unlikely a boycott or political action against them will be successful.

Post reply on HN