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

601–610 of 803 posts

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

#601

Post by strangattractor »

_heimdall wrote: post #364
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.

> Disinformation got people killed Back this up with data if you want to keep stating this as fact. How do you know know disinformation got people killed, and what specifically are you defining as disinformation?

In March 2020, an Arizona man died and his wife was hospitalized after ingesting chloroquine phosphate, a substance used in fish tanks to clean aquariums, in an attempt to prevent or treat COVID-19. They reportedly mixed the substance with liquid and drank it, experiencing immediate effects. The man's wife told NBC News she had seen televised briefings where President Trump discussed the potential benefits of chloroquine for COVID-19 and remembered using it for her koi fish. The Banner Health hospital system issued a warning against taking inappropriate medication and household products to treat or prevent COVID-19, emphasizing that chloroquine used for malaria should not be taken for this purpose.

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

#602

Post by Terr_ »

klooney wrote: post #488
akimbostrawman wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need moderation for more than legality though, otherwise you can't have open forums like this, that aren't total cesspits.

Right:

* When a bot farm spams ads for erectile dysfunction pills into every comment thread on your blog... That's "legal content"!

* When your model-train hobbyist site is invaded by posters sharing swastikas and planning neo-nazi rallies, that too is "legal content"--at least outside Germany.

All sorts of deceptive, off-topic, and horribly offensive things are "legal content."

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

#603

Post by p_j_w »

rolph wrote: post #587
tzs wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i find it hard to believe there is any content on YT platform that they are unaware of.

I mean what do you think happens? Do you think YouTube employs an army of people to watch and vet every single video that gets posted there?

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

#604

Post by carlosjobim »

neop1x wrote: post #368
ivanjermakov wrote: post #133

Cooking at home is considered harmful according to restaurant owners.

Yes, a great analogy. And actually most of the time the food we cook at home is better than what we can get in restaurants. Sadly. Cooking decent food at home takes time, it should have been a restaurant job, but the reality is what it is...

Learn a few dishes well, soon you are cooking them at home much faster than it would take to wait for them at any restaurant, including all cleanup and dishes.

Bonus: Cheaper, much higher quality, much better taste, and most importantly: you can drink as much as you want without getting kicked out.

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

#605

Post by 9283409232 »

lurk2 wrote: post #598
genewitch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's peertube and Pixelfed and someone was working on an activitypub version of Instagram, but really it's like Pixelfed but more ergonomic for video. So the next stage, ideally, would be everyone kinda sharing hosting responsibilities, and if you like a creator, you just follow them. This has the benefit of possibly caching/mirroring all the videos, too. My Fediverse server was chewing through disk, one of the re…

> Pixelfed I suspect a lot of these projects are being held back by bad branding. The first time I heard the term “fediverse,” I assumed it was alluding to Facebook’s Metaverse being a project of the CIA.

Branding and marketing are so important and engineer minded people spit on them and kick it to the back of the line then wonder why their project isn't popular.

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

#606

Post by lurk2 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #532
genewitch wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

value for value. https://value4value.info/ or ad rolls, who knows. monetization isn't my wheelhouse. podcasts have been doing this since the inception.

Without even the opportunity to make money, there's very little incentive for creators to spend time and effort making videos for these channels. 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.

> Without even the opportunity to make money, there's very little incentive for creators to spend time and effort making videos for these channels.

YouTube had plenty of content on it before the partner program was launched, and the content was better. Some kinds of high-production value content like Wendover Productions or Tom Scott’s channel would become less common, but it would also remove the incentive for the formulaic garbage that pervades in e.g. History-related content. There are end-to-end AI content generation systems now that don’t even involve a human operator; that content wouldn’t exist without a profit motive, but maybe it would be better if it didn’t.

> 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.

That’s part of it but the viewership is also way larger on YouTube, which is also really, really good at finding audiences in a way that a smaller service like substack could never compete with.

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

#607

Post by mardifoufs »

camgunz wrote: post #559
mardifoufs wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm gonna skip way to the end of this: * masking saved lives * vaccines saved lives * kids could spread COVID-19 * even young, otherwise totally healthy people died from COVID-19 We knew all these things basically immediately, but because of intense brainrot tons of misinformation spread on the internet. YouTube pulling down videos about COVID-19 misinformation saved lives. The end.

So, no actual proof? And actually no, at least where I live, for the first two weeks masks were strongly discouraged and were said to be useless by our local government (Quebec). That was for the first 2 weeks of the pandemic, which were the most important in terms of spread. Even hospital staff were told to not wear them. I'm glad YouTube didn't ban anyone who didn't agree with our local government's opinion on masks then.

Also, that's funny since again, here in Quebec and in most of the world kids were back to school by autumn 2020. Yet it took more than a year after that for children in the US to go back to school. I guess American experts just knew more than everyone else. It's as if things aren't as cut and dry as you make them out to be.

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

#608

Post by ryandrake »

prmoustache wrote: post #291
touristtam wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TikTok is a direct competitor to YouTube Shorts That sounds odd since I recall them comparing themselves to IG shorts, and YT shorts not being a thing while TT was becoming the in social media; just an observation, more than anything else.

They are still a competitor in the sense they are with instagram actively engaged in the task of reducing people's average attention span which makes the traditional youtube format less popular.

Unfortunately, the generalized "brainrot content and distribution" market is massive and contains many competitors.

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

#609

Post by mardifoufs »

herbst wrote: post #592
mardifoufs wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright laws are usually more strict in Europe. Yes it's a broad generalization and Europe has a lot of different jurisdictions, but the biggest European countries all have worse Copyright laws. France has HADOPI, Germany has its own mess, and the EU itself is extremely pro-copyright.

Copyright maybe. Talking about normal human things like sex or dangers definitely not

I don't think there's any law that restricts that type of speech in the US. YouTube is strict about those things because of advertisers, not because of any local law.

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

#610

Post by rolph »

p_j_w wrote: post #603
rolph wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i find it hard to believe there is any content on YT platform that they are unaware of.

I mean what do you think happens? Do you think YouTube employs an army of people to watch and vet every single video that gets posted there?

no i think YT uses an AI to categorize and vet media based on standard rubrick, at a pace that exceeds a human collective by orders of magnitude.

they know about it as soon as you post it.

Post reply on HN