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

331–340 of 803 posts

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

#331

Post by lelanthran »

Lio wrote: post #144
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.

I think if you were sensitive you could still have that conversation. People might very well complain, as is their right, but they’d still allow it if you were sensitive. The problem is that the Jewish community in the UK is relatively small and vulnerable and there is the tendency for such discussion to turn ugly and affect the lives of all British Jews regardless of their thoughts on Zionism. We don’t want you burn…

> We don’t want you burning Korans outside of mosques and we don’t want you throwing paint at people on their way to temple.

Those two things are not the same. The latter is physical assault. The former isn't anything but a statement on faith.

> I’m not religious but I don’t want either of those situations.

I don't see anything wrong in burning a religious book as a public statement. Why, specifically, do you need that banned?

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

#332

Post by shakna »

ekianjo wrote: post #307
shakna wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, thus far, Covid19 has been through too many rapid changes for natural immunity to be effective. [0] The earlier forms allowed for it, but the evolution of the virus has outstripped most natural defences. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

But somehow the vaccines catch up on the strains before they come out?

They attack different things in the virus. Often multiple things at once. Which really should not be surprising.

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

#333

Post by subjectsigma »

g42gregory wrote: post #84

As I recall, it all started as the so called "Trump exception". The laws temporarily did not apply. I remember reading a letter by Stanford Journalism Professor in the Economist, saying that situation was exceptional and journalists not only do not have to tell the truth, but almost have a duty to say whatever is necessary to rectify the results of 2016 elections. It was just the beginning. Next was the "Covid except…

I have had friends and family members say this to me in real life. (That is, lying about Trump is less of a sin that what he’s doing, so the media has a responsibility to discredit him.) But I’ve never seen anyone write it. Do you know the name of the author?

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

#334

Post by lupusreal »

sigilis wrote: post #219
tmtvl wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You just can’t shout fire in a crowded cinema This meme needs to die. You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theatre. If there is a fire or some other emergency or you have a reasonable belief that there is a fire or other emergency.

The context of the scenario, the meme if you will, is that there is no fire. You're just shouting it for the fun of it, to see the crush of panicked bodies running just because you willed it. That is why it was used as an example of speech that is harmful. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

The context of the scenario is you are a war protestor who's telling people they should resist the draft. Obviously protected political speech, which was outlawed using the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.

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

#335

Post by shakna »

handoflixue wrote: post #306
shakna wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disinformation got people killed. That creates liability. The causes a platform to suppress information. Information, backed by experts, usually requires intervention by a higher power to supress - because it doesn't carry the same liability.

Amazon.com currently carries the "Anarchist's Cookbook", including the Author's Footnote saying that the publication of this book is a terrible and dangerous idea. My local library also carries this book. Is this disinformation really more dangerous than that book? Is there some reason YouTube should be more liable for user-uploaded content, versus a bookstore being liable for content they deliberately choose to carr…

For a time, the Cookbook was banned. However, due to most of it being common knowledge, and the rest of it being ineffectual nonsense unlikely to harm anyone, restrictions were relaxed.

In some jurisdictions, however, it does remain banned to this day. YT are liable if they broadcast the contents of the Cookbook to the UK, for example.

Which is a great example of companies acting because they'll end up liable. Which is the only point I've made.

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

#336

Post by IshKebab »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #207
IshKebab wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is probably a problem with most internet moderation. You saw the same thing on StackOverflow - moderators spending big chunks of time going through a queue of things to moderate, so they use heuristics rather than really understanding the item. Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...".

> Also most of the things in the queue should get "no" as an answer, so they just get into the habit of "no, no, no, no...". I have access to these review queues on Stack Overflow (as basically everybody with sufficient karma has), but my default is "yes" (i.e. innocent, until proven otherwise).

I do too but every time I look at them... There are a lot of really bad questions. Like not even coherent English, just dumps of logs with no context. Stuff that definitely should be downvoted.

I was going to go and get an example from the queue but I just checked and they're actually all empty. SO is truly dead.

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

#337

Post by Defletter »

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 wrote: post #303
Defletter wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that like it's not already de-facto true.

This is, by far, one of the saddest statements I have read on this site. You are not wrong. The world around us serves as a clear proof of that and yet I still want to believe in the 'aspirational nature' of the values that are supposedly guiding US as a country.

I think the problem comes from an unconscious belief that the Constitution is self-executing, thus is something that can be taken for granted because it'll always be there protecting them. That they can elect someone like Trump and it's fine because he's confined by the Constitution. Ultimately, the Constitution and its amendments are just words on paper: their worth comes from the People's demand, substantiated with an implied threat of revolution, that those words be obeyed. When your society acquiesces to the tyranny of partisanship within your institutions, particularly within the Supreme Court and it's self-proclaimed right to amend the Constitution at will, your Constitution only continues to exist through inertia. Elect someone like Trump who has no regard for the law unless it's useful to him, and that inertia slows. To quote Danielle Allen: "I have seen time and again people who just stop reading at that period after 'pursuit of happiness'." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqiFMiQeXNQ)

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

#340

Post by March_Hare »

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…

You have the right to free speech As long as you're not Dumb enough to actually try it
Post reply on HN