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

341–350 of 803 posts

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

#341

Post by KaiserPro »

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,…

These are two different, but slightly related topics, which are being conflated with a third.

Google is not censoring based on moral grounds here. Its purely financial. If they are caught hosting "how to circumvent DRM", then a number of licensing agreements they have with major IP owners that allows them to profit off music, video and other IP disappears. Most of the take down stuff is either keyword search or automatic based on who is reporting.

The Online safety act is utterly flawed, to the point that even ofcom really don't know how to implement it. They are reliant on consultants from delloite or whatever, who also have no fucking clue. The guidelines are designed for large players who have a good few million in the bank, because in all reality thats how ofcom are going to take to court.

There are a number of thing the act asks to happen, most of them are common sense, but require named people to implement (ie moderate, provide a way to report posts, allow transparent arbitration, etc, etc) along with defined policies. In the same way that charities are allowed to have a "reasonable" GDPR policy, it seems fair that smaller site should also have that. but this would go down badly with the noise makers.

As for age protection, they also really don't know how to do it practically. This means that instead of providing a private (as in curtains no peaking) age assurance API, they are relying on websites to buy in a commercial service, which will be full of telemetry for advertising snooping.

Then there is moral/editorial censorship, which is what you go to a media platform for. Like it or not, you choose a platform because the stuff you see is what you expect to see there, even if you don't like it. Youtube is totally optimising for views, even if it means longterm decline. (same with facebook, instgram and tiktok)

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

#342

Post by verisimi »

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,…

> children should be protected.

I get how this sounds unambiguously good - but I hate this excuse. As I see it, if you don't allow kids some danger (unmonitored play, freedom of movement) you end up with adults that are completely unable to assess dangers correctly and want themselves (and everyone else) to be nannied by the government/legislation/etc.

There really are dangers out there, and it is not a bad thing to engage with them to be able to build independence, rather than trying to edit the world to conform to a (mistaken, protected) idea of reality.

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

#343

Post by shakna »

friendzis wrote: post #202
slg wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Youtube is a private company. They can make whatever additional moderation decisions beyond the law they want. Which are in no way based on what you want but are entirely based on what advertisers want. This control effectively answers every question you raised. This is effectively the same thing. Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which impacts their opin…

> Advertisers care because the users have different moral judgments on different types of content which If users were happy seeing Ford ads on porn, Ford would likely be fine advertising on Pornhub. Was this hypothesis ever actually even remotely tested or is it advertising agencies deciding what content is no bueno?

Business accounts that list porn sites tend to get banned by the processor. There are very few payment processors willing to work with the major porn networks.

In 2022, both Visa and Mastercard banned Pornhub, leading to major shakeups as the network tried to get off the blacklist.

I don't see most advertisers being happy with spend on such a volatile target - even before the agency debates if it will affect brand image.

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

#344

Post by Gareth321 »

kassner wrote: post #62
gloosx wrote: post #49

Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.

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

This is why I have de-Googled my family - at least for the most part. The hardest part was Gmail. Hundreds of services and accounts relied on that email address for 2FA. If I were to be blocked from it, I would be screwed. So I bought a domain and spent the next couple of years migrating everything to it. Pain in the ass, but now no one can ever ban me from my own email address. Worst case scenario my provider blocks me and I switch to another one in minutes. Plus I can do cool things like catch-all, so when I sign up for services I use "verizon@[mydomain.com]". I have caught many cheeky fuckers selling my email address to spammers.

Outside of this there is very little harm in my Google account being banned now. I'd lose some YouTube watch history and a few locations on Google Maps.

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

#345

Post by christophilus »

sp0ck wrote: post #107

This is mass problem with almost any topic you want to share. I'm sport shooter, range officer and competition jury. You have no idea what crazy stunts YouTube do for Gun/Sport Shooting related content. YT terms containt some weirdest restriction for things like "shown magazine capacity". Wrong angle on video and your 10 round mag is seen by YouTube as 30 round and your video is gone. You can show silencer disconnect…

Same for tobacco stuff. I follow a few pipe-tobacco reviewers, and YT has begun to tighten the clamp there, too.

It wouldn’t bother me if YouTube wasn’t basically a monopoly. I know some of them have been switching to Rumble, but to be honest, the competition is so fragmented that I don’t see any of them gaining critical mass.

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

#346

Post by Gareth321 »

gloosx wrote: post #49

Since Youtube started to show me funny "TURN OFF THE ADBLOCKER!!!" notices, I just started slamming links in yt-dlp and watching them offline. No drawbacks so far.

uBlock Origin Lite on Chrome seems to be working really well for me. Check out your filter lists and maybe tick a few boxes.

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

#347

Post by Gareth321 »

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.

By then we will have real-time AI detectors to identify and remove ads. Begun, the LLM ad wars have.

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

#348

Post by shakna »

zanfr wrote: post #305
shakna wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Most vaccines do not completely prevent you from contracting a virus. They reduce the liklihood, and thus reduce the footprint. Heck, the concept of herd immunity is about protecting individuals who cannot be vaccinated at all. By reducing a virus' footprint.

there is no long term herd immunity with coronaviruses; which is why they are often use in disaster prevention scenarios... what you call "herd immunity" is merely letting people die...

Herd immunity, for some definitions of a debated term, is absolutely achievable - and lasting. [0]

> Technically, then, a population can reach herd immunity even with low levels of the pathogen still circulating, which means it hasn't necessarily been eradicated for good. The point, ultimately, is that herd immunity may not be the right shorthand to refer to the end of the pandemic. It’s been bandied about incorrectly, certainly imprecisely, Fine says. “I think people often haven’t a clue what they’re saying.”

[0] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8166024/

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

#349

Post by tvier »

chris12321 wrote: post #309
atemerev wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Revolution is a change of government, not the end of the state. And the state of Israel is recognized by other states and the UN.

After German reunification the states of East Germany and West Germany ceased to be. Was that two genocides?

The two sides of this conversation seem to be using different definitions of the word "state".

I won't argue which is more appropriate in this context, but I think that's where the crux of the disagreement is.

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

#350

Post by Lio »

lelanthran wrote: post #331
Lio wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

I kind of agree with you that as a public statement it shouldn't be banned but it's not the burning of the koran, or any book, that should be protected but the where and when of it.

I feel similar to how I feel about fans who taunt opposition fans at football matches.

Some off colour jokes are funny, even when they're in bad taste. They aren't and shouldn't be banned. You hear a commedian saying them on stage and you'd laugh.

Making those same jokes at a football match though has the potential to cause a riot because people's passions are already raised.

I'm not talking about normal banter[1] related to the game or the teams but the dark stuff that crosses the line. I'm sure you can google it if you want examples.

Where the lines are I'm glad I'm not the one to decide.

1. The crumble based memes are some of the best.

Post reply on HN