Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its the problem of those they affect. "Infectious" is not self-contained to a singular individual. Its also a problem for the platform - who is now party to it happening. YouTube allowing bad medical advice will hurt YouTube. Their safest option, is to disallow it.
> YouTube allowing bad medical advice will hurt YouTube. YouTube censoring videos people want to see will also hurt YouTube.
Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
281–290 of 803 posts
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#282Yeah YouTube are getting shittier by the day. I keep getting banners telling me that ad blockers aren't allowed on YouTube. Stuff is pretty unwatchable now without them. Well fuck you I'll just download the videos with yt-dlp instead. If that stops working, I'll not bother.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#283A bit off topic, but still: Why do we need YouTube and other "Video Hosting" platforms at all? Simply upload your video (webm, or MP4) to any static Webserver and embed in HTML5. Plays nicely and no adds. I don't get why some sites still embed their movies stored on YouTube.
* it serves multiple sizes for faster/slower connections * it serves it with correct codecs, whatever the original input * from local servers that are close to the user, so it's faster * it doesn't kill your bills when the video becomes moderately popular * discussions built-in * virality built-in * it won't go down when you forget to pay your server * you don't need to deal with hosting software updates You can solv…
Even a paid service, Vimeo, made news a few years ago because they would bill video uploaders for "moderately popular" videos: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30686704
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#284There was a recent drama in the drum'n'bass community because someone kept claiming they owned the rights to music that wasn't actually theres, resulting in some classic dnb music from the 90s by Peshay repeatedly being taken down from YouTube. It's utterly ridiculous how trivially bad actors can wreak havoc like this.
The problem is that for some strange reason there is no punishment for malicious/false copyright claims.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#285Earlier 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.
Since Swedish policy during covid, produced by medical professionals and researchers, was contrary to US policy during covid, this kind of information was also removed. You do not have this kind of disagreement within the professional field with bomb making materials. Pandemic prevention is an on-going research topic where a lot of different professionals has wild difference in views and approaches, and the meta stud…
A company can generally be relied upon to act to reduce their liability in most cases. That involves not pissing off their federal regulatory bodies.
Sweden was not caught up in the early suppression of misinformation. Things changed after a certain tacolike individual called Google's CEO into a private meeting. And expecting them to ignore that, is insane.
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> Herd immunity can only be achieved if a sufficiently large part of the population is vaccinated. ...or getting infected, of course.
[0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This tendency to obscure context is unfortunately pretty common within discussions about freedom of speech (or the lack thereof) within the UK. I would just like to point out that if your points were so evident, you wouldn't need to remove context to make them. You may it sound like Coskun threw a Quran into his fireplace and the police kicked his door down and arrested him. You're leaving out that he travelled acros…
What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#289There was a recent drama in the drum'n'bass community because someone kept claiming they owned the rights to music that wasn't actually theres, resulting in some classic dnb music from the 90s by Peshay repeatedly being taken down from YouTube. It's utterly ridiculous how trivially bad actors can wreak havoc like this.
The problem is that for some strange reason there is no punishment for malicious/false copyright claims.
In practice nobody gets pursued for it for several reasons:
* Filing a counterclaim means handing the DMCA filer all your personal information (note that the entity filing the DMCA can and often has the ability to get this info redacted on their side of the equation unless you file a counterclaim), so a lot of people simply don't do it because you're handing your personal info to a possibly malicious party.
* The platform provider has no reason to pursue false claims, since the pushback against a malicious DMCA claim isn't large enough for them to meaningfully lose users.
* Legal fights in the US get expensive very quickly and the reward for winning isn't exactly high enough for a lawyer to give you the nice deals.
Finally, most of the problems with the DMCA are just baked into how the law is written. The entire law basically incentivizes providers to acquiesce to anyone who might be a copyright holder, because if they stick their neck out, they risk it blowing up and losing their safe harbor protections (which makes them liable for other copyright infringement.)
Re: Self-hosting your own media considered harmful according to YouTube
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately for that meaning of the word — and a few million people stuck in the middle — two completely different groups of racists are both simultaneously coopting it to stir up hatred for their enemies, who are the other group. > (Opposing the actions of said state is, of course, a natural right and can be freely expressed by anyone) Unfortunately, the "soldier mindset" (as opposed to scout mindset) is dominant…
Well, the soldier mindset and "us vs them" mindset is deadly, and the history is littered with mountains of corpses of people who subscribed to this world view, as well as millions of their innocent collateral victims. Hate is deadly and useless. Israel is a nation that is tightly bound and has the right to exist, as there are millions of people who consider themselves Israeli. Palestine is a nation and has the right…
Brave, and I respect that position.
Myself, I would prefer to carefully phrase things to not get hated. I likely can't be of any help anyway, but I think the chances go down even further if both broader groups hate me equally and think I'm on the opposite team or can't see what the other lot are doing wrong.
> I won't give the words meaning beyond what was originally given to them.
"Orangeman" is a member of the Orange Order in Northern Ireland, named for the Dutch William of Orange who took over the UK at the beshest of parliament to support protestantism. William got the name from the principality of Orange, which is named after the city of Orange, which is in France and named after the Celtic word for foread or temple.
They wear the colour orange, even though the colour is named after the fruit (old English grouped this colour under "red"), the fruit being a corruption somewhere in probably-France of "Norange" (hence modern Spanish "naranja"), and before that Arabic.
Back to Dutch Prince William of Orange: The Dutch for the colour is "oranje"; for the fruit is "sinaasappel", literally "Chinese apple", hence the similar (but I'm told distinct species of) fruit with the English name of "mandarin".
Oranges are technically a kind of berry, unlike strawberries which are not.
The zest of an orange is an important ingredient of the mincemeat used in mince pies, which (despite the name) are generally vegetarian.
Words.