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

311–320 of 803 posts

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

#311

Post by actionfromafar »

ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #204
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,…

> Many will say, this is good, children should be protected. The second part of that is true. But the way this is being done won't protect children in my opinion. It will result in many more topic areas falling below the censorship threshold. For example, YouTube currently has quite a lot of really good videos on harm reduction for drug users (and probably also a bunch that are not very good and/or directly misleadin…

All these concerns are muddled by thinking about Youtube as the example, since it is such a blind meta machine optimising for ad revenue, it’s already actively pushing all kinds of harmful content.

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

#312

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 »

thrance wrote: post #236
KurSix wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

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

#313

Post by logifail »

peterclary wrote: post #248
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

> Children die because their parents believe in anti-vax nonsense

Do we know how many otherwise healthy children caught Covid and died from it?

My impression from the official figures is that in most countries the number is vanishingly small if not zero.

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

#314

Post by kuschku »

charcircuit wrote: post #56

This title is false and clickbait. From the article the explaination for what part of the dangerous or harmful content rule being broken is about instructing people how to pirate content. >Dangerous or Harmful Content >Content that describes how to get unauthorized or free access to audio or audiovisual content, software, subscription services, or games that usually require payment isn't allowed on YouTube. In the ar…

DVD encryption is not considered DRM or encryption in the EU, as it is too weak to provide any meaningful protections.

If ripping DVDs is not allowed in the US, then the video should be region locked (just like Pride Month content us blocked in certain arabic countries), but not removed.

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

#315

Post by account42 »

gloosx wrote: post #115
kassner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will become harder to ignore the possible retaliation Google can make against your/your family’s Google accounts.

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 don't have any illusion that this is not how things are but I don't think that should mean that we accept this. We can very well demand that if google wants to take over that much of people's lives that they should not get to do whatever they want. This becomes even more important when you have less and less options for realistic alternatives.

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

#316

Post by bugtodiffer »

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,…

UK's predator network was also built to protect kids but in the end is only used for copyright infringement

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

#317

Post by aleph_minus_one »

ekianjo wrote: post #304
brigandish wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Herd immunity is not a direct goal of vaccination, protection of the individual being vaccinated is. If someone needs protection, then they should get vaccinated!

Then why did we ask small kids to be vaccinated for COVID when they had no serious risk of anything? Rhetorical question, of course.

> Then why did we ask small kids to be vaccinated for COVID when they had no serious risk of anything?

Think of the children ... :-)

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

#318

Post by Defletter »

brigandish wrote: post #288
Defletter wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You're leaving out that he travelled across the country to burn it outside Turkish consulate in London What's the relevance? You can burn a Quran without anyone knowing but if anyone knows then it's forbidden and criminal?

Not to be glib, but yes, that's what Public Order Offences are. Society and law exists so that we can co-exist, and people going out of their way to be offensive and provocative by, say, setting things on fire in a public space and saying hateful things... yeah, that's eminently antisocial. If you want to frame this as criminality coming from mere knowledge, you can do that, but you're obscuring context... you're literally doing the thing. Cringe.

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

#319

Post by prickledponcho »

nicce wrote: post #277
neepi wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too unreliable. I just use yt-dlp and throw it on VLC on my iPad with airdrop. If it's not worth that effort it probably wasn't worth watching anyway.

There will be a time when computing is so cheap that ads will be injected to the stream in such a way that it is impossible to remove them without real-time AI detector that indentifies the parts where ads are.

Sponsor Block add-on works well for this, but entirely dependent on ads being at fixed time in the video.

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

#320

Post by potato3732842 »

shakna wrote: post #210
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…

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.

>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.

Proliferating attitudes about the restriction of communication like you are doing and advocating for is bad and gets people killed. The history books are chock f-ing full of the recipe and the steps.

I'll take my chances with the plastic explosives and the health quackery.

Even though people may spew falsehoods the truth "just is" and will keep coming back up.

Post reply on HN