481–490 of 803 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> …while pretending the US doesn't have any. As far as I can tell, the comment you replied to did not do any such thing.
They’re referring to the comment upthread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44198428
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Big tech censorship disgusts me. Everything is completely backwards from what it should be, and the sheer scale of those platforms (bigger than many countries by population or money) prevents individual people and even governments from exercising meaningful democratic oversight. So these platforms congregate hundreds of millions of people and whatever their CEOs and/or douche tech bros in SV decide is what becomes la…
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.
[flagged]
There's also a ton of general anti-pharma content on YouTube that they'd get taken down, demonetized, etc if they had any power over YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Big tech censorship disgusts me. Everything is completely backwards from what it should be, and the sheer scale of those platforms (bigger than many countries by population or money) prevents individual people and even governments from exercising meaningful democratic oversight. So these platforms congregate hundreds of millions of people and whatever their CEOs and/or douche tech bros in SV decide is what becomes la…
The thing to understand is your last paragraph: everything big ads does is unsurprisingly focused toward making people into worse versions of themselves. You wouldn't let kids go to a casino or porn site for educational material. Don't let them use youtube either. It could be that someone happened to post educational videos to the porn site. If so you'd might as well download them while you have the chance, but don't…
On the other hand, porn services are (generally) actively blocked in educational institutions, so the content, regardless of its educational quality will never be suggested to kids because they are not a target audience. (Not to mention the legal trouble these services would have from actively enticing minors) I doubt we’ll see “PornHub for kids” our RedTube signing a contract with Blippi or Miss Rachel.
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.
Yes it is.
Where on earth did you get that idea from? Heck, even YouTube's rolling cypher has been found to be sufficient protection to quality from anti-circumvention provisions, and no actual encryption was used there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is more to serving videos well than meets the eye. Not all browsers support all codecs. Not all devices have sufficient bandwidth to stream the highest quality encoding or the available bandwidth isn't constant. Does the server have enough bandwidth? How much does the hosting service charge for outgoing traffic? While you can put an mp4 file on a webserver and call it a day, it'll most likely be a pretty bad ex…
Not a bad experience at all compared to ads.
Without defining the experience you can call it better or worse than any random thing!
But if the video stops every 0.1 seconds to buffer for two hours, is that better than stopping very 25 minutes for a 30 second ad?
If the video must be 24 x 32 pixels for the bandwidth to be low enough for your server restrictions, is that worse than the above scenario but a 4k 60fps video?
Where do you draw the line for experience?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities Interesting position - when somebody posts illegal content on YouTube, they are not liable, it’s not their speech. But when I want to post something they don’t like, suddenly it’s their freedom of speech to remove it. A lot of breakdown in society lately is clearly coming from the fact that some people/companies have…
The solution would be to revoke section 203 from any platform which acts as a digital public square if they do moderation beyond removing illegal content. Ofc they would try there best to be excluded to have there cake and eat it too.
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.
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…
Citation very, very much needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even though people may spew falsehoods the truth "just is" and will keep coming back up. I wish I had your level of confidence about this. I just feel like it is not the case these days and it’s depressing.
Indeed. In the ages pre-algorithmic social media and pre-generative AI I would agree that about truth. Now I'm not so sure.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law
Debunking disinfo takes significantly more energy than it did to create it, although I have no more than anecdata to back it up I have yet to find anyone who disagrees.
So, I too would like to believe that the truth prevails but imo it only does so when its champions are incredibly persistent.