531–540 of 803 posts
It is bad that youtube became only video hosting platform and everyone is putting videos there, even government institutions. That leads to many annoyances, where critical information is blocked by myriad of ads. This should be illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will federation solve monetisation?
value for value. https://value4value.info/ or ad rolls, who knows. monetization isn't my wheelhouse. podcasts have been doing this since the inception.
The reason YouTube is huge is because they invite anybody in to try to get paid for their content, and nobody else does that.
This is why most content which should be an article or even a podcast is instead posted as some guy talking in front of the camera on YouTube.
I've had 2 of my videos taken down - they were educational videos teaching how to use Microsoft Access (I know, I know, but lesson plans are lesson plans). We were using a fictional medical database to help explain tables and general querying. BUT whatever the reason, be it a user or YTs moderation team, showing table records was deemed inappropriate because I was "sharing PPI". I appealed both cases and got rejected…
I had an unlisted video with all of about six views blocked because there was a radio playing softly in the background. When I looked at their process for appeal, they specifically said that incidental background radio music is ok, and appropriate for an appeal. So I appealed. It instantly got denied. I gave up at that point as this private video really didn't matter. But it made it clear that their appeal process is just a sham.
Of course that video is harmful. /s
The "harm" is to youtube's revenue stream. Which is why they gave it a strike and denied the appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this thread we are talking about a US based youtuber uploading to a US based video sharing service. Those jurisdictions where it may be legal are out of scope.
If this issue was related to infringing US law, specifically, region-locking out of the US would have been a fair and sane approach. YouTube has the tools for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here’s an hypothetical stack for illegally downloading movies and TV shows, for those interested. They all run on Docker: - QBittorrent: torrent client - Prowlarr: offers an API to torrent search services, connects to qbittorrent - Sonarr: uses Prowlarr to search latest episodes of TV shows, submits torrent file to QBittorrent for download, neatly categorises the completed file - Radarr: the same as above, but for mo…
Some to add -Plex or Jellyfin: Netflix like interface to organize and watch your content. -Overseerr: Managing your movie and tv show requests for you and people you share your media with. Works with Radarr/Sonarr/etc. -Watchlistarr: syncs your Plex Watchlist with Overseerr.
- Kometa + Imagemaid: a Plex collection and cover art manager that allows you to create custom overlays, such as having ratings for IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic embedded directly into the cover art. Also gets rid of the issue in Plex where cover art occasionally changes.
- Doplarr: a Discord bot that connects to Overseerr, allowing you to search/add from within Discord
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…
> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…
Also see Gonzales v. Google.
But really the most dangerous thing here is telling a company that they are legally liable for everything their users post. A large company like Google has the legal firepower to handle the massive onslaught of lawsuits that will instantly occur. A smaller startup thing? Not a chance. They're DOA.
Heck, even on my tiny traffic personal website, I would take the comment section down because there's no way I can handle a lawsuit over something somebody posted there.
I should not be required to host content I do not wish to host. And at the same time I must be shielded from liability from comments that people make on my website, if we are to have a comment section at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes the American media overblow some of the issues for clicks. However you can be arrested for speech and it isn't just threats to violence. > In the US, you have people being literally grabbed off the street and sent to foreign prisons because of their speech with no due process. This isn't true. Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. You a…
> Many of these people were arrested because they had entered the country illegally and then sent to foreign prisons. Actually, most of the illegals being arrested didn't enter the country illegally; they legally entered the country (for example, to file an asylum claim), but for various reasons, they're no longer legally allowed to be in the country.
In any-event, fuck this site because people will flag you/downvote for just disagreeing with someone if it is a politically sensitive topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah because if it wasn’t for COVID YouTube, Facebook, et al would never have removed any content on their platform, unlike what they had been doing all this while… There are so many issues with this. Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities. The real problem is twofold. 1. A few platforms hold monopoly positions. Who else can compete with Youtubr? And the rea…
> Being able to pick what content they host is fundamental to freedom of speech for private entities I simply don’t think this applies to places like YouTube. But if does then they also must be responsible for the content. It makes no sense that curating content is their free speech but at the same time it’s not their speech when the content could have legal repercussions to them. The argument that removing videos is…
There is no such implication because the first is an affirmative act based on their knowledge of the actual content and the other is a passive act not based on knowledge of that content.