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

541–550 of 803 posts

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

#541

Post by Zren »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #527
arrosenberg wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point is that people do pay for these services and they have still introduced ads to squeeze out more revenue. Ergo, paying for a service guarantees nothing.

What you are describing is called "ad-subsidized", you pay less than the full cost and get ads to cover the difference.

Netflix has continually raised prices, and earns more from the ad plans than those paying more for zero ads.

Becoming a paying customer is just a negotiation with advertisers to raise their rates until Netflix concedes to what they want. Since they know you have more discretionary income Netflix can also charge more for ads. They're also incentivized into turning those customers into ad supported by increasing the no ad plan cost.

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

#542

Post by intended »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371
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,…

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…

One thing I really wish, is that more people volunteered to moderate things. It’s a volunteer position, it’s needed for most of the communities we are part of, and doing this raises the floor of conversations across the board.

The distance between the average view point on how free speech works, and the reality that content moderation forces you to contend with, is frankly gut wrenching. We need to be able to shorten that distance so that when we discuss it online, we have ways to actually make sense of it. For the creativity of others ideas to be brought to bear.

Otherwise, we’re doomed to reinvent the wheel over and over again, our collective intuitions advancing at a snails pace.

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

#543

Post by [deleted] »

tzs wrote: post #539
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383

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…

Your premise is incomplete. When someone posts illegal content on YouTube they are not liable if they are not aware of the illegality of that content. Once they learn that they are hosting illegal content they lose their safe harbor if they don't remove it.

[deleted]

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

#544

Post by camgunz »

thrawa8387336 wrote: post #526
camgunz wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you replace "Covid" with "child porn" or "animal cruelty" or "anti-semitism" you'll see how bad this argument is.

Those 3 are not even comparable to each other...

Oh you don't think a plague that killed over 7 million people rates w/ animal cruelty?

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

#545

Post by arrosenberg »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #527
arrosenberg wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point is that people do pay for these services and they have still introduced ads to squeeze out more revenue. Ergo, paying for a service guarantees nothing.

What you are describing is called "ad-subsidized", you pay less than the full cost and get ads to cover the difference.

Which affects the decision making of the company. There are things they won’t platform for fear of offending an advertiser. The effect is pervasive, regardless of whether you are paying the full rate or not.

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

#546

Post by dspillett »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #4

The video they made does not encourage piracy, but even if it did it seems bizarre to flag that as "Dangerous or Harmful Content."

> Dangerous or Harmful

There were many attempts to link piracy to terrorism and the drugs trade.

Because what makes enough money for crack dealers & weapons traders to use for money laundering, is some bootleg DVDs and adverts on torrent tracker web front-ends…

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

#547

Post by mardifoufs »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371
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,…

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…

Mhmm, so would it be fine for a private platform not allowing say, Muslims on their website? Especially a platform as big as YouTube? I mean, it's essential to their rights to be able to do that, I guess?

Like I understand your point, but this argument is usually not actually useful. Especially since it's usually not coming from "free speech absolutist" types, so it always comes off as a bit disingenuous. Unless you are arguing for big corporations having an absolute right to free speech, which I would disagree with but would at least make the argument consistent.

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

#548

Post by intended »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383
hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #371

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…

Sadly it turns out that the biggest driving force is politics, and the inability for our institutions to win with boring facts, against fast and loose engaging content.

The idea is that in a competitive marketplace of ideas, the better idea wins. The reality is that if you dont compete on accuracy, but compete on engagement, you can earn enough revenue to stay cash flow positive.

I would say as the cost of making content and publishing content went down, the competition for attention went up. The result is that expensive to produce information, cannot compete with cheap to produce content.

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

#549

Post by torstenvl »

tzs wrote: post #539
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #383

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…

Your premise is incomplete. When someone posts illegal content on YouTube they are not liable if they are not aware of the illegality of that content. Once they learn that they are hosting illegal content they lose their safe harbor if they don't remove it.

Please don't post deliberately false information on HN.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

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

#550

Post by mardifoufs »

camgunz wrote: post #544
thrawa8387336 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those 3 are not even comparable to each other...

Oh you don't think a plague that killed over 7 million people rates w/ animal cruelty?

You sound like the people who argue for disallowing any communist speech or ideology from being discussed because "communism killed 100 million people" or something.

Like yes covid killed millions. What's your point exactly? Do you have any proof that YouTube taking down videos that didn't agree with how the situation was handled actually saved lives? Or is your argument just that if anyone disagreed (even for stupid reasons) publicly with covid policies, they are somehow causing people to die? Again, do you have any actual proof?

Post reply on HN